economic loss doctrine in some de tail. See Air Prods, 256 F.Supp.2d 329. In Pennsylvania, “negligence and strict liability theories do not apply in an action between commercial enterprises involving a product that malfunctions where the only resulting damage is to the product itself.” REM Coal Co. Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co., 386 Pa.Super. 401, 563 A.2d 128 (1989) (en banc). The economic loss doctrine has been extended outside the realm of products liability to cases involving negligence in the performance of services contracts. Ashburner Concrete and Masonary Supply, Inc. v. O’Connor Truck Sales, Inc., No. 489, 2001 WL 1808035, at *3 (Pa. Cm.Pl. Aug. 10, 2001) (citing Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Associated Constr. and Management Corp., 2000 WL 424273, at *7 (E.D.Pa. Apr.19, 2000) (<HOLDING>); Factory Market, Inc. v. Schuller Int'l Inc.,
holding that economic loss doctrine bars negligence claims as to engineering services related to roof repair and reconstruction holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims holding that negligence in the performance of engineering services is inherently undiscoverable