its employee because “purely economic losses are unrecoverable in tort. . . actions in the absence of personal injury or property damage” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Straley, 533 N.E.2d 764, 771 (Ohio 1988) (“We do not find that a duty to an injured employee’s employer exists by virtue of the pronouncements of common law, by legislative enactment, or by operation of law. It would appear that such a duty could only exist based on contract or warranty.”); Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 627 P.2d at 473 (citing the prevailing rule “that a plaintiff may not recover for economic loss resulting from negligent infliction of bodily harm to a third person”); Vogel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 571 N.W.2d 704, 708 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>). {17} This conclusion is consistent with both
holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding as a matter of public policy that allowing damages to an employer for economic consequences arising from injuries to an employee would enter a field with no sensible stopping point recognizing that a foreign company as a special employer under the lent employee doctrine was subject to arizonas workers compensation statutes for injuries sustained by an employee