See, e.g., Hernandez v. Tallahassee Med. Ctr., Inc., 896 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). As an initial matter, we note that, in their brief, appellants have made substantive arguments directed only to counts 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 33 and 34. Accordingly, they have abandoned or waived any challenge to dismissal of the remaining counts. See White v. White, 627 So.2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (quoting from Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So.2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). As to the counts appellants have addressed substantively, we conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed with prejudice counts 11, 19, 20, 27, 28, and 33 as barred by the economic loss doctrine. See, e.g., AFM Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So.2d 180, 181-82 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>); Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation,
holding that without some conduct resulting in personal injury or property damage there can be no independent tort flowing from a contractual breach which would justify a tort claim solely for economic losses holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship holding that absent an independent tort a plaintiff alleging a breach of contract may only seek to recover the damages flowing from the breach holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim