when a defective product has resulted in the loss of value or use of the thing sold and/or the cost of repairing it — i.e., when a product damages itself but does not cause personal injury or damage to any other property than itself. See, e.g., East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 870, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986) ("since by definition no person or other property is damaged, the resulting loss is purely economic. Even when the harm to the product itself occurs through an abrupt, accident-like event, the resulting loss due to repair costs ... is essentially the failure of the purchaser to receive the benefit of its bargain— traditionally the core concern of contract law[]”); Lloyd Wood Coal Co. v. Clark Equip. Co., 543 So.2d 671, 673 (Ala.1989) (<HOLDING>). "The purpose of the economic loss rule is to
holding that a cause of action does not arise in negligence when a product malfunctions or is defective and the malfunction or defect results in damage only to the product itself and produces only economic loss holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding that a commercial buyer of defective goods cannot maintain a strict liability or negligence suit for economic loss to the product as the remedy is a breach of warranty suit under the ucc holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that no products liability claim lies in admiralty when commercial party alleges injury only to product itself resulting in purely economic loss insofar as the tort concern with safety is reduced when an injury is only to the product itself