8 . Interestingly, this reluctance appears to extend even within the construction context. See Lutz Eng’g Co., Inc. v. Indus. Louvers, Inc., 585 A.2d 631, 636 (R.I.1991) (distinguishing Porte Bros, from a dispute between a subcontractor and an architect whose only responsibility was to review shop drawings). 9 . This sets the present case apart from Rousseau, 727 A.2d at 192, which involved unsophisticated consumer-plaintiffs who could not adequately guard against economic losses through contract. 10 . It is unclear whether, under Rhode Island law, the economic-loss rule would extend to service providers, such as insurers and their agents. Some jurisdictions have held that it does not. See, e.g., Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec. Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361, 688 N.W.2d 462, 467, 472 (2004) (<HOLDING>). But here the question is academic. It is not
holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers holding that the gtla does not apply to contract claims against governmental entities holding that rule 45b does not require personal service holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract