¶ 16. The limitation to contract remedies in this context is the general rule in most other jurisdictions, as well. See, e.g., Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc., 690 P.2d 158, 163-64 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (upholding dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim for purely economic losses resulting from latent construction defects in their home, while reversing dismissal of claim for breach of implied warranty of workmanship); Tusch Enters v. Coffin, 740 P.2d 1022, 1025-26, 1034 (Idaho 1987) (economic loss resulting from costs to replace or repair structural defects to residences were not recoverable under negligent construction theory, but would support claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability); Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf, 441 N.E.2d 324, 326-27 (Ill. 1982) (rejecting tort claim for faulty construction of home, holding that economic losses from reduced value or repair costs to home were actionable under breach of contract and warranty theories rather than negligent construction); Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., 83 P.3d 1257, 1263 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that economic loss doctrine barred negligence claim against residential contractor for construction defects where rights were governed by express and implied warranties); Calloway v. City of Reno, 993 P.2d 1259, 1270 (Nev. 2000) (concluding that purely economic losses from structural defects in residential townhouses were not recoverable under negligence theory), overruled on other grounds by Olson v. Richard, 89 P.3d 31 (Nev. 2004); Lempke, 547 A.2d at 291 (reaffirming principle precluding tort recovery for economic losses from construction defects in home); Maack v. Res. Design & Constr., Inc., 875 P.2d 570, 581 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (economic loss rule barred plaintiffs’ action for negligent construction to recover for costs incurred from defects in home); see generally S. Barrett, Recovery of Economic Loss in Tort for Construction Defects: A Critical Analysis, 40 S.C. L. Rev. 891, 897 (1989) (discussing history and rationale of economic-loss rule for construction defects and noting “[t]he majority view ... denies recovery because any damage to the product itself is a commercial expectancy *551interest protected by contract law, rather than tort law”). Accordingly, the trial court properly rejected plaintiffs’ negligence claim.