With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". adopted in West,[] strict liability has not replaced warranty law as the remedy for frustrated economic expectations in the sale of goods. In exchange for eliminating the privity requirements of warranty law and expanding the tort liability for manufacturers of defective products which cause personal injury, we expressly limited tort liability with respect to defective products to injury caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself. Am. Aviation, 891 So.2d at 541. We also noted that “the products liability economic loss rule articulated in Seely and East River, and adopted by this Court in Florida Power, applies even in the absence of privity of contract.” Id. (citing Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Prevost Car, Inc., 660 So.2d 628, 631 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>)), see also Casa Clara, 620 So.2d at 1248

A: holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims
B: holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract
C: recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles
D: holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity
D.