and “economic damages” are much more expansive than the meaning encompassed by the term. For example, the Washington legislature declared that “[ejconomic damages” means objectively verifiable monetary losses, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property, cost of replacement or repair, cost of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities. RCW 4.56.250(l)(a). Relevantly, Washington’s product liability act (WPLA), chapter 7.72 RCW, defines “ ‘[h]arm’ ” to “include [ ] any damage [ ] recognized by courts of this state: PROVIDED, That the term ‘harm’ does not include direct or consequential economic loss under Title 62A RCW.” RCW 7.72.010(6) (emphasis added). Se 3, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) (<HOLDING>). In large part, because of the growing
holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission recognizing the cause of action holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles