353 S.E.2d at 726 (declining to impute to the legislature an intent to abrogate the privity requirement by implication and thus allow negligence actions for economic loss). Some states may recognize an independent common law cause of action for professional negligence, decline to apply the economic loss rule to cases of professional negligence, or hold that a statute governing professional liability gives riseHo an independent cause of action, but I find that Virginia law does not support these theories of recovery. Virginia law is clear that contracts give rise to professional duties, and privity of contract is a prerequisite to claiming professional negligence. B. Claim for BREACH of Imp aintiff has not stated a plausible claim for breach of implied contract. 9, 228 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of adequate allegations that
holding the act specifically applicable to a custom builder who uses substandard material in the construction of a house and stating generally that the act was not intended to provide an exemption for a custom builder holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that an architects responsibility to adhere to county regulations when designing a building does not give rise to a right to implied contractual indemnification when the builder must later pay the building owner for the cost of bringing the building into regulatory compliance holding that an employers mere failure to follow its own rules and regulations does not give rise to a protected property interest holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action