664, 694 (1964). Most courts and commentators have opposed allowing recovery of purely economic losses because of the fear that there will be crushing, virtually open-ended liability imposed on defendants if economic claims are recognized. “[OJnly a limited amount of physical damage can ever ensue from a single act, while the number of economic interests a tortfeasor may destroy in a brief moment of carelessness is practically limitless.” Comment, Foreseeability of ThirdParty Economic Injuries — A Problem in Analysis, 20 U.Chi.L.Rev. 283, 298 (1953). As Chief Judge (later Justice) Cardozo succinctly put it, liability would be “in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.” Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179, 174 N.E. 441, 444 (1931) (<HOLDING>). The possible extent of the liability is
holding that a public accountant was not liable to creditors and investors who relied upon a negligently prepared balance sheet reflecting the assets of a company holding the attorneyclient privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtors assets which is held by a law firm holding that a trustee had no standing to pursue claims of fraud against the debtors accountant because under connecticut law those claims belonged to investors holding that an accountant owed a duty of care not only to his own client but to a limited and foreseeable class of third parties for whose benefit and guidance the accountant knows the information is intended holding that an emergency petition by an insurance commissioner in her capacity as liquidator of an insurance company that was whollyowned by the debtor holding company was not an exercise of police and regulatory powers because it sought to take control of the debtors assets to allow certain policyholders and creditors to gain a pecuniary advantage over other creditors of the debtors estate