rule does not apply to bar the tort claim for economic harms if the defendant breached a duty of care that was independent of the contract. This may occur because the duty did not arise out of the contract and is not intertwined with the contract duty of performance. Phrased differently, the tprt duty, to be actionable, must not be “interwoven” with the contract. Id.; see also BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66, 74 (Colo. 2004) (“If we conclude that the duty of care owed by [the parties] was memorialized in the contracts, it follows that the plaintiff has not shown any duty independent of the interrelated contracts and the economic loss rule bars the tort claim and holds the parties to the contracts’ terms.”); Parr v. Triple L & J Corp., 107 P.3d 1104, 1108 (Colo. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Gulfstream Aerospace Servs. Corp. v. U.S.
holding that defendant may be liable in tort when it has breached a duty of reasonable care distinct from its contractual obligations because a tort obligation is a duty imposed by law  apart from and independent of promises made and therefore apart from the manifested intention of the parties to a contract holding that although defendant president of defendant leasing company did not sign lease in his individual capacity and could have an independent wellrecognized obligation imposed by tort law to refrain from intentional interference with a prospective business advantage economicloss rule barred tenants tort claim because source of defendants duty not to interfere with assignment of lease was parties lease agreement and thus it was improper to analyze the existence of an independent tort duty in determining whether an economic loss may be recovered holding absent some independent tort contract agreement voluntary assumption of duty or special relationship of the parties the new tort of the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence should not be recognized in kansas holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage