with the plaintiff. The court has no choice but to limit Moransais to the facts of that case and conclude that the Moran-sais court intended that the economic loss doctrine would not bar a professional malpractice claim where the defendants do not have a contract with the plaintiff, as in that case. Wfiiere a contract exists between the parties, the court left open the possibility that the economic loss doctrine would bar a claim for professional malpractice if the claim is dependent upon a contract. In this case, the economic loss doctrine bars plaintiffs negligence claim because plaintiffs negligence claim is dependent upon its breach of contract claim, as discussed above. See Perfumeria Ultra, S.A de C.V., v. Miami Customs Servs., Inc., 281 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1223 (S.D.Fla.2002)(<HOLDING>); AFM Corp., 515 So.2d at 181 (finding no basis
holding postmoransais that economic loss doctrine barred negligence claim because aggrieved partys damages emanate from breach of contract and not from an independent tort holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract holding that the economic loss doctrine may bar recovery if the defendants duties emanate from contractual relationships holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract