applicable to relationships arising out of real estate sales contracts as other contractual relationships. It, therefore, appears that Alaska cases foreshadow a general rule precluding negligence actions by those in privity where only economic losses are alleged. Since this is not an intentional tort case, it is not necessary to evaluate the reasons Alaska will not permit tort cases for economic loss in the context of intentional torts. There are seven possible objections to this analysis. First, it could be argued that the Supreme Court will not recognize a separate tort claim for strict liability between those in privity where only economic loss is suffered but will permit a tort action for negligence. This interpretation of Northern Power was rejected in Tyonek, 680 P.2d at 1151-54 (<HOLDING>). Second, it could be argued that the ban on
holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself