CHMM v. Freeman Marine Equip., No. 13-35163 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCHMM, owner of a luxury yacht, filed suit against Freeman, manufacturer of a "weathertight" door for installation on the yacht, alleging five tort claims arising out of the door's alleged malfunction. The court applied the rule in Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J.M. Martinac & Co., concluding that where the manufacturer of a product had no responsibility for manufacturing or assembling items that the user adds to the product, the user-added items are considered “other property” for purposes of the economic loss doctrine. In this case, the economic loss doctrine does not bar CHMM from suing in tort for damage to the Interior Outfit caused by the allegedly defective Freeman door. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded.
Court Description: Admiralty Law. Reversing the district court’s judgment in an admiralty case, the panel held that a vessel owner could sue for the physical damage a defective vessel component caused to property that the owner added to the vessel before the vessel was delivered. The panel held that the vessel owner’s tort claims were not barred by the economic loss doctrine, which precludes recovery against a manufacturer for physical damage that the manufacturer’s defective product causes to the “product itself,” but allows recovery for physical damage the product causes to “other property.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.