Titan Stone, Tile & Masonry, Inc. v. Hunt Constr. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 174710, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2007); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d 238, 248 (3d Cir. 2010) (“New Jersey courts have consistently held that contract law is bett at *4, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9944, at *12 (D.N.J. Feb. 5, 2010) (“The economic loss doctrine provides that a tort remedy does not arise from a contractual relationship unless the breaching party owed an independent duty imposed by law.”); Martino v. Everhome Mortgage, 639 F.Supp.2d 484, 494 (D.N.J.2009) (dismissing a negligence claim because the parties were in a contractual relationship, and “a [tort claim] is not the appropriate vehicle to remedy [the] injury.”); cf. Gleason v. Norwest Mortgage Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 144 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). There is no doubt that the relationship
holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that the key question in deciding whether the economic loss doctrine applies to a negligence claim is whether the negligence was extrinsic to the subject matter of the contract holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract