injury or property damage”).. The majority’s conclusion that the economic loss rule is limited to the products liability context does not undermine Florida’s contract law or provide for an expansion in viable tort claims. Basic common law principles already restrict the remedies available to parties who have specifically negotiated for those remedies, and, contrary to the assertions raised in dissent, our clarification of the economic loss rule’s applicability does nothing to alter these common law concepts. For example, in order to bring a valid tort claim, a party still must demonstrate that all of the required elements for the cause of action are satisfied, including that the tort is independent of any breach of contract claim. See Lewis v. Guthartz, 428 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla.1982) (<HOLDING>); Elec. Sec. Sys. Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel.
holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract 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 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 while punitive damages are normally not recoverable for breach of contract where acts constituting a breach of contract also amount to a cause of action in tort there may be recovery of exemplary damages  however the breach must be attended by some intentional wrong insult abuse or gross negligence which amounts to an independent tort