it may be applied to negligence claims against an engineering observation service. "The relevant inquiry concerns the type of loss sustained and not the nature of the relationship giving rise to the loss." Collins, 553 N.E.2d at 72.
Economic losses have been defined as damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits -- without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property. Moorman, 435 N.E.2d at 449. Economic losses are the diminution in value of a product because it is inferior in quality and does not work for the general purpose for which it was manufactured and sold. Id. A negligence action is proper only when harm above and beyond disappointed expectations has been shown. Oakbrook Terrace v. Hinsdale Sanitary District, 172 Ill. App. 3d 653, 527 N.E.2d 70, 74, 122 Ill. Dec. 698 (2nd Dist. 1988). A buyer's desire to enjoy the benefit of his bargain is not an interest that tort law traditionally protects. Id.
In Anderson Electric, 115 Ill. 2d 146, 503 N.E.2d 246, 104 Ill. Dec. 689, Anderson, a subcontractor who entered into a contract to perform electrical work for a general contractor, brought an action in tort against a manufacturer alleging that the latter negligently failed to supervise and inspect Anderson's work. As a result of this negligence, Anderson was required to redo certain work. The court held that regardless of Anderson's ability to recover in a contract action, the Moorman doctrine barred Anderson's tort action. Anderson's damages were economic losses arising from defeated expectations of a commercial bargain in that the Anderson lost the anticipated profits from its contract with the general contractor. Id. 104 Ill.Dec. at 692.
Similarly, Quadion does not allege that HDR's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of any personal injury or property damage. Instead, the complaint asks for the cost which has been and may be incurred for remediation and decontamination of the Addison site. (Complaint, para. 20.) Such costs are clearly economic losses arising from defeated expectations of a commercial bargain. The direct and proximate result of any negligence on HDR's part is the cost of remedying the defective service, or consequent loss of profits from the suit by Ganton. Thus, the court finds that the Moorman doctrine bars Quadion's negligence action against HDR. Accordingly, HDR's motion to dismiss Count II must be granted.
IV. COUNT III: INDEMNIFICATION AND/OR CONTRIBUTION
In Count III, Quadion asserts that, since any damages recovered by Ganton against Quadion are the direct and proximate result of HDR's wrongful acts or omissions, Quadion is entitled to obtain indemnity and/or contribution from HDR to the extent of any judgment that may be entered in favor of Ganton against Quadion. (Complaint, paras. 25-26.)
Indemnity is a common law doctrine providing for the complete shifting of liability on a showing that there was a pre-tort relationship between the guilty parties and a qualitative distinction between their conduct. Heinrich, 459 N.E.2d at 938. As there is no express indemnification provision in the contract which would require HDR to indemnify Quadion, Quadion must be relying upon an implied indemnity theory. However, in view of the Contribution Act, implied indemnity no longer exists in Illinois. Stephan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 147 Ill. App. 3d 833, 498 N.E.2d 687, 689, 101 Ill. Dec. 363 (1st Dist. 1986). Thus, Quadion's claim for indemnification must be dismissed.
Contribution in Illinois is a statutory remedy which involves the sharing of payment of damage awards and is available to all parties who are "subject to liability in tort arising out of the same injury . . . ." Heinrich v. Peabody Int'l Corp., 99 Ill. 2d 344, 459 N.E.2d 935, 938, 76 Ill. Dec. 800 (1984) (quoting Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 70, para. 302(a)). The only tort claim that Ganton is asserting against Quadion is fraud in the inducement. (Ganton Complaint, paras. 23-29.) Intentional tortfeasors are not entitled to contribution under the Illinois Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 70, para. 301 et seq.) (the "Contribution Act"). Gerill Corp. v. Jack L. Hargrove Builders, Inc., 128 Ill. 2d 179, 538 N.E.2d 530, 542, 131 Ill. Dec. 155 (1989). Since the only tort alleged by Ganton is an intentional one, the court must dismiss Quadion's contribution claim.
For the reasons stated above, HDR's motion to dismiss Count I is DENIED, and HDR's motion to dismiss Counts II and III is GRANTED. The case is set for further status on January 17, 1991 at 10:00 a.m.