for a loss covered by the policy. The Court dismissed plaintiffs negligence claim, and declined to consider the claim as one for “professional negligence”, applying the economic loss doctrine. Applying these holdings to the case at bar, it is clear that Plaintiff cannot maintain its negligence claim against [the broker]. Numerous courts have held that negligence claims for economic loss do not survive the economic loss doctrine. See Chemtrol [Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mwt. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 537 N.E.2d 624, 629-30 (Ohio 1989) ] (explaining that “a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable”); All Erection & Crane Rental Corp., 1:01-cv-1282, at 7 (N.D.Ohio Apr. 9, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Meskill, 2006 WL 903207 *4-5, 2006 U.S. Dist.
holding that the key question in deciding whether the economic loss doctrine applies to a negligence claim is whether the negligence was extrinsic to the subject matter of the contract holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract