With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Invo would have to prove a different set of facts. For example, as Invo illustrates in their Initial Brief, in Count II of the Amended Complaint, Invo must prove all the ele ments for defrauding a present creditor under section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes. Invo can do this by proving that Somerset transferred the property in question without Invo receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and that Somerset was insolvent or became so after the transfer. See § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). These elements are different than the ones required for Invo to prove a breach of contract action and are plainly independent of the contract; thus, they are not barred by the economic loss rule. See Pershing Indus., Inc., v. Estate of Sanz, 740 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(<HOLDING>). Lending further support to Invo’s position

A: holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract
B: recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule
C: holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction
D: holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract
D.