44
Plaintiffs' reliance on 532 Madison, 750 N.E.2d 1097, is misplaced. 532
Madison involved the collapse of a section of a wall of a 39-story office tower during a
construction project. The collapse resulted in the closure of businesses along fifteen
blocks of Madison Avenue for approximately two weeks, with some businesses
remaining closed for even longer periods. See id. at 1100. Having sustained no personal
injury or property damage, the plaintiffs in 532 Madison sued the ground lessee and
managing agent of the construction sight for the economic damages resulting from the
closure of Madison Avenue. The Court of Appeals dismissed the negligence claims,
holding that claims for economic loss, "f[e]ll beyond the scope of the duty owed them by
defendants[.]" Id. at 1103.
Plaintiffs cite the fact that the Court of Appeals expressly limited the
scope of duty to those who "suffered personal injury or property damage," id., as
authority for the proposition that a duty of care exists for their claim. However, 532
Madison solely addresses whether the particular plaintiffs alleging economic loss fell
outside of the scope of the duty of care, and the Court of Appeals held that they fell
outside such a duty. More important, the defendants in 532 Madison were the ground
lessee and the managing agent of the construction site, the parties who were presently and
immediately responsible for maintaining a safe structure. Id. at 1100; see also In Re
September 11th Litigation, 280 F. Supp. 2d at 300 (applying the holding of 532 Madison
to the owner and ground lessor of 1 and 2 WTC). Nowhere in the opinion does the Court
of Appeals consider whether the architects, engineers, or other design professionals of an
earlier time owed any duty of care to the plaintiffs. Given the strong policy
considerations counseling against the imposition of a duty of care on design defendants
