With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mfg. v. Milwaukee Steel Foundry, 777 F.Supp. 413, 416 (E.D.Pa.1991) (“damages for the loss of goodwill are in the nature of economic loss” and thus are “excluded from tort recovery by the economic loss rule”). See also American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Petroleum Co., 1998 WL 333965, *5 (E.D.Pa. June 23, 1998) (“Loss of good will and reputation constitutes economic loss, not property damage”); International Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1988 WL 113360, *6 (E.D.Pa. Oct.24, 1988) (“loss of good will” and “loss of reputation” are “economic losses” and “do not constitute damage or injury to tangible property”). The economic loss doctrine has been applied to service contracts. See Factory Market, Inc. v. Schuller International Inc., 987 F.Supp. 387, 397 (E.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>); Sun Co., Inc. v. Badger Design &

A: holding that the economic loss rule bars negligence claim for failure to receive a particular return on cattle investment program
B: holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract
C: holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract
D: holding that economic loss doctrine bars negligence claims as to engineering services related to roof repair and reconstruction
C.