or any injury to another legally protected interest.” (Emphasis added; internal footnotes and citations omitted.) Accordingly, we focus on the source and scope of defendants’ liability. Assuming, without deciding, that defendants’ conduct, as alleged, infringed on a legally protected interest of plaintiff, we hold that the infringement of that interest is not of sufficient importance to warrant an award of damages for emotional distress. The underlying interest arises from the relationship between plaintiff as a client and defendants as accountants. Even though the relationship is fiduciary in nature, it is fundamentally an economic one. It is not similar to the interests that the court held cognizable for purposes of emotional damages in Norwest. See also Bennett, 154 Or App at 406 (<HOLDING>); Collver v. Salem Insurance Agency, Inc., 132
holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding that jury not required to award noneconomic damages merely because it has awarded economic damages holding that emotional distress damages related to an attorneyclient relationship was properly stricken because the underlying interest was chiefly economic holding that there is no right to a meaningful attorneyclient relationship holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded  had to the damages  sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship