of the contract, the plaintiffs claim will only sound in contract. Id. In operation, the rale restricts contracting parties to contractual remedies for those economic losses associated with the relationship, even when the breach might reasonably be viewed as a consequence of a contracting party’s negligence. See Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986) (“When the injury is only the economic loss to the subject of a contract itself, the action sounds in contract alone.”). In other words, the economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic losses in negligence when the loss is the subject matter of a contract between the parties. Coastal Conduit & Ditching, Inc. v. Noram Energy Corp., 29 S.W.3d 282, 285 (T .3d 355, 378 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we overrule JP Morgan’s fifth
holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract