[14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Once the other parameters are established, the rule bars recovery even if the parties are not in contractual privity. Id. at 290.' The subject of the Transportation Agreement is the delivery of natural gas to the Granbury power plant. Wolf Hollow alleges Enterprise negligently performed its duties under that contract by delivering contaminated gas to the plant. Wolf Hollow further alleges that this contaminated natural gas damaged the turbines and oth er plant equipment. Because Wolf Hollow alleges that Enterprise’s negligence resulted in physical damage to parts of Wolf Hollow’s power generating facility, which were not the subject of the Transportation Agreement, the economic loss rul o. 4:07CV285, 2008 WL 5146964, at *5 (E.D.Tex. December 8, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we sustain Wolf Hollow’s ninth
holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims