## Facts

- Samuel P. Alloway III bought a new 33-foot power boat from a retail dealer for $61,070; the manufacturer provided a 12-month express warranty against defects in materials and workmanship.
- Alloway insured the boat under a comprehensive policy issued by New Hampshire Insurance Co.
- Approximately three months after purchase, the boat sank while docked, allegedly due to a defective seam that allowed water intrusion.
- No personal injury occurred, and no other property was damaged; the losses were limited to repair costs and related economic consequences.
- New Hampshire paid slightly over $40,000 for repairs; Alloway paid about $2,500 as a deductible and later traded in the repaired boat for more than $38,000 in credit.
- The manufacturer entered bankruptcy; its assets were later sold to General Marine Industries, L.P. (GMI) “free and clear” under 11 U.S.C. § 363.
- Alloway and New Hampshire (as subrogee) sued GMI and the dealer, alleging breach of warranty, strict products liability, and negligence, seeking only economic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer and subrogated insurer may recover in negligence or strict products liability for purely economic loss when an alleged product defect damages only the product itself and causes no personal injury or damage to other property.
2. Whether any remaining warranty-based recovery against an asset purchaser is barred by a bankruptcy court’s “free and clear” sale order under 11 U.S.C. § 363.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated dismissal of the negligence and strict-liability claims against GMI.
- The court held that tort remedies are unavailable for purely economic loss resulting from a defective product that harms only itself; the proper remedies lie in contract and warranty under the U.C.C.
- Because the viable theories were contractual in nature and the assets were sold “free and clear” under § 363, plaintiffs had no enforceable claim against GMI on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- The economic loss doctrine bars negligence and strict-liability claims seeking only economic damages (e.g., repair costs, diminution in value, loss of use) when the product defect causes damage solely to the product itself.
- Tort law primarily addresses safety-related harms (personal injury or damage to other property), while the U.C.C. provides the principal framework for allocating risk of product quality and disappointed commercial expectations through warranties and contractual limitations.
- The doctrine applies in consumer transactions as well as commercial settings when the claimed harm is limited to the product itself.
- A bankruptcy “free and clear” asset sale under 11 U.S.C. § 363 may prevent enforcement of warranty-based claims against the purchaser where the claims are treated as interests extinguished by the sale order.

## Conclusion

The court confined recovery for a defective boat that sank without injuring persons or other property to U.C.C. warranty and contract remedies, rejecting negligence and strict-liability theories for purely economic loss; in light of the bankruptcy “free and clear” sale, no claim could proceed against the asset purchaser.


Alloway v. Gen. Marine Indus., L.P., 149 N.J. 620, 695 A.2d 264 (1997)