suited to resolve disputes between the parties where a plaintiff alleges direct and consequential losses that ... could have been the subject of their negotiations.”); Slim CD, Inc. v. Heartland Payment Sys., 2007 WL 2459349, at *9, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62536, at *25 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2007) (“Under New Jersey law, a tort remedy does not arise from a contractual relationship unless the breaching party owes an independent duty imposed by law.” (quoting Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc., 170 N.J. 297, 788 A.2d 268, 277 (2002))). In other words, the economic loss doctrine is meant to prevent plaintiffs from recovering on tort claims where their relationship with a defendant “only flows from a contract,” and thus should be litigated as a contract claim. See also Hunter, 588 F.Supp.2d at 652 (<HOLDING>); Shinn v. Champion Mortgage Co., 2010 WL
holding that the economic loss doctrine will preclude conversion claims arising out of a contractual relationship holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding that the economic loss doctrine may bar recovery if the defendants duties emanate from contractual relationships holding postmoransais that economic loss doctrine barred negligence claim because aggrieved partys damages emanate from breach of contract and not from an independent tort holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement