holding that under the economic loss rule, if an alleged product malfunction is alleged to have caused purely economic loss, then the end-purchaser is limited to contract claims against the manufacturer and may not seek damages in tort

adopting dissenting opinion of Silverman, J.

adopting the reasoning of the dissenting opinion below

adopting economic loss doctrine

adopting Judge Silverman's dissenting opinion

denying cause of action for reasons stated in dissenting opinion below

reversing lower court decision

reversing lower court decision

reversing grant of leave to amend to add strict liability claim for pure economic injury

embracing the views expressed in Justice Silverman's dissenting opinion

In Schiavone, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and trial court and embraced the economic loss rule.

In Schiavone, supra, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's holding that a cause of action in strict liability could be asserted "for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Samuel J. Silverman," reported at 81 A.D.2d 221, 227-34, 439 N.Y.S.2d 933, 937-41 (1st Dep't 1981). It should be noted that Justice Silverman's opinion directly addressed only the question of liability for economic loss under a theory of strict products liability.

In Schiavone, the truck hoist could not withstand ordinary use in the plaintiff's business and eventually had to be sold at a loss.

In Schiavone Constr. Co. v Mayo Corp. (56 N.Y.2d 667, revg 81 A.D.2d 221 on dissenting opn below), the Court of Appeals adopted limitations on tort recovery based on product failure.

involving claims of economic loss only