for a paper mill), some lower state courts appear to have taken the opposite position. See Hap’s Aerial Enter. v. General Aviation Corp., 173 Wis.2d 459, 496 N.W.2d 680, 683-84 (1992) (negligent airplane inspection), overruled on other grounds by Daanen & Janssen, 573 N.W.2d at 851 & n. 8; Milwaukee Partners v. Collins Eng’rs, 169 Wis.2d 355, 485 N.W.2d 274, 276-77 & n. 3 (negligent building inspection), review denied, 491 N.W.2d 767 (Wis.1992). The Wisconsin Supreme Court expressly reserved comment on this issue in Daanen & Janssen. See 573 N.W.2d at 851-52. (“[W]e have not addressed nor do we address here whether the doctrine applies with equal force to damages resulting from the provision of services.”). But see A.E. Inv. Corp. v. Link Builders, 62 Wis.2d 479, 214 N.W.2d 764 (1974) (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, we do not need
holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract holding that michigans economicloss doctrine bars recovery through the tort of negligent misrepresentation for economic loss caused by a product purchased for commercial purposes holding that an architect whose negligent design and supervision of construction render a building unfit for use may be liable in tort to a commercial tenant who suffers economic loss as a result holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional