## Facts

- Washington Harbour is a Georgetown waterfront retail and office complex built with disappearing flood walls intended to protect against significant flooding.
- RP MRP Washington Harbour, LLC owned the complex, and RP MRP Real Estate Services Group, LLC managed it; plaintiffs alleged defendants had sole control over operating the flood walls.
- On April 18, 2011, the Potomac River surged and flooded ground-level businesses, the basement, and a parking area at Washington Harbour.
- Employees of various tenant businesses alleged that, despite warnings and indicators of flooding, the flood walls were only partially raised or not raised until hours after flooding began.
- Multiple tenant businesses closed for periods ranging from days to weeks, and at least one tenant closed permanently.
- Plaintiffs (employees) alleged they lost wages as a result of the closures, with claimed losses ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars.
- Plaintiffs did not allege personal injury or damage to their own property; they sought recovery only for lost wages in negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether District of Columbia law bars negligence claims seeking purely economic losses from an interruption in commerce caused by a third party’s alleged negligence.
2. Whether employees of tenant businesses had a “special relationship” with the property owner/manager creating an independent tort duty permitting recovery of lost wages.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court adopted the economic loss doctrine in the District of Columbia.
- Because plaintiffs sought only purely economic damages (lost wages) without alleging personal injury or property damage, their negligence claims were barred.
- The court held no special relationship existed between the employees and the property owner/manager that would create an independent duty to protect against the claimed economic losses.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence does not permit recovery for purely economic loss arising from an interruption in commerce caused by a third party, absent personal injury, property damage, or a legally recognized special relationship creating an independent duty.
- Foreseeability of economic harm, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a tort duty that allows recovery of purely economic losses.
- The special-relationship exception requires more than an attenuated connection; lack of contractual privity and the risk of indeterminate liability weigh against recognizing a duty to indirectly affected economic actors.

## Conclusion

The court aligned the District of Columbia with jurisdictions limiting negligence liability for economic ripple effects by adopting the economic loss doctrine and holding that employees could not recover lost wages from a property owner/manager for alleged flood-prevention failures absent injury, property damage, or a special relationship creating an independent duty.


Aguilar v. RP MRP Wash. Harbour, LLC, 98 A.3d 979 (D.C. 2014)