that the economic loss doctrine bars Biszantz’s claims of fraud. The district court determined that the Kentucky Supreme Court would extend the economic loss rale to bar contractually based fraud claims. R. 47, PagelD .925-27. Even assuming that Kentucky would adopt the minority view and apply the economic loss doctrine to bar contractually based fraud claims, see Ralph C. Anzivino, The Fraud in the Inducement Exception to the Economic Loss Doctrine, 90 Marq. L. Rev. 921, 931-83 (2007) (explaining that majority approach is to allow broad exception to the economic loss doctrine for all claims of fraud), we doubt that Kentucky would employ the doctrine to bar fraud claims seeking - rescission, see Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. PowerSports, Inc., 319 F.3d 973, 981 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Biszantz appears to have pled rescission in
holding that the economic loss doctrine may bar recovery if the defendants duties emanate from contractual relationships holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding that even wisconsin which has one of the broadest coverages of the economic loss doctrine would not apply it to bar an action for the rescission of a contract