of the economic loss doctrine). As a final matter, we must also reject Rodman’s claim that its negligence suit is actionable under the “other property” exception to the economic loss doctrine. This exception allows for tort suits when the allegedly defective product damages other property owned by the purchaser. For instance, in Tony Spychalla Farms v. Hopkins Agricultural Chemical Company, 151 Wis.2d 431, 444 N.W.2d 743, review denied, 446 N.W.2d 285 (Wis.1989), the court held that the economic loss doctrine did not bar a products liability suit that alleged that a defective product (a pesticide, in that case) harmed other property belonging to the plaintiff, namely, the potato crop. See also Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J.M. Martinac & Co., — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1783, 138 L.Ed.2d 76 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Rodman asserts that the rule in Spy-challa
holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable holding that plaintiffs were not in the zone of danger and could not recover for emotional distress because they were at not home when their house caught on fire holding that the application of feca to tort claims bars all other recovery holding that nets and other equipment added to a defective fishing vessel were other property for which recovery in tort was available when the ship caught fire and sank holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire