Thus, in the absence of injury to persons or damage to property, economic losses cannot be recovered in tort. Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 609, 653 N.E.2d 661, 667 (1995). In Ohio, however, the applicability of this economic loss rule depends on the complexity of the parties and the type tort claim at issue. See, e.g., HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 332 F.3d 1025, 1030-32 (6th Cir.2003). Although Ohio courts do distinguish between commercial entities and individual consumers, the foundational doctrinal distinction in the economic loss rule jurisprudence is whether the parties are in privity of contract. In cases of contractual privity, courts apply a strong version of the economic loss rule. See, e.g., Chemtrol, 537 N.E.2d at 631 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, when the parties are not in
holding that contract between parties not law of negligence gave rise to duty and accordingly provided exclusive source of remedy holding that when chapter 95 applies it is the plaintiffs exclusive remedy and precludes common law negligence liability holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that where the contract affirmatively shows the parties intent to charge one party with a duty of care actionable negligence may be predicated upon that contractual duty holding that it was a question of breach not duty whether an agents failure to advise a client about additional insurance gave rise to liability