Bronster, 82 Hawai’i at 40, 919 P.2d at 302. “Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer’s expectations, or, in other words, that the customer has received ‘insufficient product value.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). Under the economic loss rule, “a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.” Leis Family Ltd. P’ship v. Silversword Eng’rg, 126 Hawai’i 532, 538-39, 273 P.3d 1218, 1224-25 (Haw.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Bronster, 82 Hawai’i at 39, 919 P.2d at 301). The rule also applies to negligent design and/or manufacture theory, Bronster, 82 Hawai’i at 40, 919 P.2d at 302, and negligent misrepresentation. City Express, 87 Hawai’i at 470, 959 P.2d at 840 (<HOLDING>). The most recent Hawaii Supreme Court case
holding that claims alleging negligent misrepresentation and failure to disclose seek economic damages not property damages within insureds policy holding that an architect whose negligent design and supervision of construction render a building unfit for use may be liable in tort to a commercial tenant who suffers economic loss as a result holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract