Damage and causality are sort of like chicken and egg. What happened first? Without damage, there is really no causality, just an obligation and a violation of that duty. But without causality, there is no damage, because again we have only duty and its violation. You only know that if there is an obligation and a breach of that obligation and subsequent damage or injury, it must be caused by that breach. Complaints can be costly and stressful. Insurance coverage can often be acquired to protect a person or business from possible financial damage related to certain legal actions. It should be noted that there is no insurance for intentional infringements. Commercial offences (i.e. Economic offences) generally include commercial transactions and include unlawful interference in trade or contract, fraud, harmful lies and negligent misrepresentation. Misrepresentations of negligence are different from contract cases that relate to misrepresentation, in the absence of a contractual relationship; These unlawful acts are likely linked to pure economic losses, which are generally less likely to be reimbursed by unlawful acts. The doctrine of “foreseeability” is a criterion for determining whether economic losses are eligible.  The economic loss rule is very confusing and unevenly applied and began in 1965 with a California case concerning no-fault liability for product defects; In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upspod the doctrine of East River S.S.
Corp. v. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional stress, neglect, financial loss, injury, injury, privacy violations and many other things. As explained in the “Negligence” section above, there are limitation periods for intentional acts. Assault, battery, defamation, improper incarceration and intentional insemination of emotional stress all have a one-year statute of limitations, in accordance with the CPLR § 215 (3). . . .