# Erlich v. Menezes

> California Supreme Court · August 23, 1999 · 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542486

## Case

- **Full name:** BARRY ERLICH Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. JOHN MENEZES, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant; RON REBALDO Et Al., Cross-Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 23, 1999
- **Citations:** 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886; 21 Cal. 4th 543; 99 Daily Journal DAR 8687; 981 P.2d 978; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6808; 1999 Cal. LEXIS 5530
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Werdegar
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 284 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542486

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a duty giving rise to a tort action is “either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm”
- explaining NIED claims based on an assumed duty may prevail only if “emotional 28 concerns are the essence” of the duty
- explaining that the economic loss doctrine 22 does not apply and “tort damages have been permitted in contract cases . . . where the 23 contract was fraudulently induced” (citing Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas Ctr. Assocs., 24 235 Cal. App. 3d 1220, 1238 (1991))

## Opinion text

*562 WERDEGAR, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that a plaintiff may not recover damages for emotional distress based on a defendant’s negligent breach of a contract to build a house when the defendant has breached no duty independent of the contract. Although I read the record differently as to whether these plaintiffs did, in fact, present an independent claim for negligence, in view of the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs did not present such a claim (see maj. opn., ante, at pp. 548, 554), the discussion in part C of the majority opinion (id., at pp. 554-558) is unnecessary. I therefore express no opinion on the circumstances under which a tort plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress.
Mosk, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9542486. Public record. Not legal advice.