factor in deciding whether' to apply the economic-loss rule is not whether privity exists but rather whether there is “a duty separate and apart from a contractual duty.” Long Trail, 2012 VT 80, ¶ 13. ¶ 28. “Negligence law does not generally recognize a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid intangible economic loss to another unless one’s conduct has inflicted some accompanying physical harm.” O’Connell v. Killington, Ltd., 164 Vt. 73, 77, 665 A.2d 39, 42 (1995). The physical harm may be to property rather than persons, but injury to the product or property that is the subject of a contract is generally considered a disappointed economic expectation for which relief lies in contract rather than tort law. See E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 871 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Paquette v. Deere & Co., 168 Vt.
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 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 holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product holding that products liability cases only give rise to a tort claim where product failure harms public safety holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product