3. Economic Loss Doctrine and Limitation of Liability Provision
Maersk argues the tortious interference claim is precluded by the
economic loss doctrine and the limitation of liability provision. For
reasons already explained, supra Sect. II.B.2.b, Illinois law governs the
tortious interference claim. As discussed, supra Sect. II.D.2, the
economic loss doctrine "`denies a remedy in tort to a party whose
complaint is rooted in disappointed contractual or commercial
expectations.'" Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 265 F.3d at 615 (quoting
Collins, 607 N.E.2d at 1188 (Miller, J., concurring)). Under Illinois
law, this principle is known as the Moorman doctrine, under which
plaintiffs are prevented from recovering solely economic damages under the
tort theories of negligence, strict liability, or negligent
misrepresentation. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Babcock Indus., 1994 WL
468596, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 1994) (citing Moorman Mfg. Co. v.
Nat'l Tank Co., 435 N.E.2d 443, 453 (Ill. 1982)).
However, Illinois courts have held that the Moorman doctrine and its
progeny did not abolish causes of action for intentional interference with
contract and prospective advantage. 2314 Lincoln Park W. Condo. Ass'n v.
Mann, Gin, Ebel & Frasier, Ltd., 555 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ill. 1990)
(citing Illinois cases allowing recovery of economic losses for
intentional interference with contract and prospective economic
advantage). Additionally, as already discussed, supra Sect. II.D.3, the
limitation of liability provision does not preclude Medline from
recovering for intentional torts.
In sum, the court finds Medline has stated a claim for tortious
interference with prospective economic advantage. The tortious act is not
the breach of the agreement and Medline need not identify the third
parties at this stage. Neither the economic loss doctrine nor the
limitation of liability provision precludes Medline from asserting the
claim. Therefore, the court denies Maersk's motion to dismiss Medline's
tortious interference claim.
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendant's motion to
dismiss Count II insofar as it relies upon an implied duty of good
faith. The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss Count II to the
extent it states a claim for breach of the terms of the agreement. The
court denies defendant's motion to dismiss Counts III and VI of