[14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Here, there was no finding that there was a contract between Pharmacy II and WaMu. The economic loss rule normally applies between parties to a contract, but it does not apply to strangers to the contract. See Sharyland Water Supply Corp., 354 S.W.3d at 418 (“[W]e have never held that [the economic loss rale] precludes recovery completely between contractual strangers in a case not involving a defective product—as the court of appeals did here.”). Thus, the economic loss rule as asserted by JP Morgan does not bar Pharmacy II’s negligence claim. See id. at 419 (“The economic loss rule does not swallow all claims between contractual and commercial strangers.”); cf. Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Glenny, 405 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2013, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Matlock Place Apartments, LP. v. Druce, 369
holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding that the economic loss rale did not bar banks claim against mortgagors attorney for negligent misrepresentation where there was no contract between the bank and the attorney holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term holding that for public policy reasons the mere filing of a bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney does not mandate removal of the attorney