569 (6th Cir.2006); Picker Int’l, Inc. v. Mayo Found., 6 F.Supp.2d 685, 688 (N.D.Ohio 1998); Chemtrol, 537 N.E.2d at 630; Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 656 F.Supp. 49, 56-61 (S.D.Ohio 1986). Other cases actually support the Ohio Plaintiffs’ arguments, distinguishing between commercial buyers and ordinary consumers. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Soliant LLC, No. 1:04CV1865, 2005 WL 2035511, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 23, 2005); Cincinnati Gas, 656 F.Supp. at 56-61. And although the Sixth Circuit recently applied Ohio’s economic loss rule to bar an individual’s claim against a drug testing company, the plaintiff in that case was not a consumer who purchased the defendant’s product at the end of the supply chain. Sagraves v. Lab One, Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 366, 369 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The only contrary case on point provides no
holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity holding that economic loss rule barred negligence claim because plaintiff could not show drug testing company had duty to protect against loss of his job as result of allegedly faulty test holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties