Cal.3d 644, 647, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814 (1989) (emphasis added) (denying emotional distress claim to mother who neither saw nor heard son’s injury in a car accident). Plaintiff also argues that there is a special relationship between himself and Maserati that makes the economic loss doctrine inapplicable here. (Dkt. 22 at 15; see Aas, 24 Cal.4th at 636, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 12 P.3d 1125 (“In t , 157 Cal.Rptr. 407, 598 P.2d 60 (1979) (delineating the special relationship exception and holding that airport restaurant had special relationship with contractor who contracted with airport operator to renovate the airport, allowing restaurant to recover lost profits arising from construction delays caused by contractor); Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 648-51, 320 P.2d 16 (1958) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff is not a third party in relation to
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that a decedents intended beneficiary had a special relationship with the notary public who had prepared a defective will recognizing limited thirdparty rights in the context of an attorneyclient professional relationship where the plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the prevailing standard of care holding no abuse of discretion where judge had personal relationship with government witnesses but had not had contact with them for over ten years