Furthermore, determining whether the economic loss doctrine applies in a case is an issue of law subject to unlimited appellate review. Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc. , 297 Kan. 926, 931, 305 P.3d 622 (2013) ; see also David v. Hett , 293 Kan. 679, 682–83, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011) ; Koss Construction v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 25 Kan.App.2d 200, 201, 960 P.2d 255, rev. denied 265 Kan. 885, ––– P.2d –––– (1998). Kansas Product Liability Act

But some jurisdictions expanded the doctrine's application to other circumstances. David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 685–89, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011). In Kansas, its scope is still unfolding.

Specifically, Coker argues the district court's decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., 32 Kan.App.2d 435, 83 P.3d 1257,rev. denied 278 Kan. 847 (2004), which—although good law at the time the court issued its opinion—subsequently was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court in David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 699, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011). We review a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment as follows:

Doce Ltd. P'ship v. Sandridge Exp. and Prod., LLC, 2017 WL 1836977, at *3 (citing Duffin v. Patrick, 212 Kan. 772, 512 P.2d 442, 447-48 (1973)).David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 270 P.3d 1102, 1104 (2011). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.The Court views all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.

City of Winfield v. Key Equipment & Supply, 2012 WL 1207256, *1 (D.Kan. April 11, 2012) (citing Lens Plan, 675 P.2d at 899–99, and noting that Kansas “has consistently applied [the doctrine] in the context of product liability claims”). See also David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 270 P.3d 1102, 1109–11 (2011); Koss Constr. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 25 Kan.App.2d 200, 960 P.2d 255, 260 (1998); Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., 489 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1243 (D.Kan.2007). “[T]he economic loss doctrine is ‘the fundamental boundary between contract law, which is designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, and tort law, which imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others.’ ”

For these reasons, Madison's Motion to Dismiss Sanderling's breach of implied warranty claim is denied. David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 270 P.3d 1102, 1112 (2011) (citing Crabb v. Swindler, 184 Kan. 501, 337 P.2d 986, 989 (1959)). D. Madison's Motion to Dismiss Sanderling's Breach of Express Warranty Claim

Since the doctrine's adoption by the United States Supreme Court in East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., courts have extended its application beyond the commercial product-liability sphere to preserve the distinctions between contract and tort law.David v. Hett, 270 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Kan. 2011) (quoting Indem. Ins. Co. v. Am. Aviation, 891 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 2004)). Rinehart v. Morton Bldgs., Inc., 305 P.3d 622, 627 (Kan. 2013) (citation omitted).

After this court's ruling, Louisburg Building & Development Co., L.L.C. v. Albright, 45 Kan.App.2d 618, 252 P.3d 597 (2011), the Albrights sought further review by our Supreme Court. That court granted review only regarding one issue, the third one raised, which was stated by the Albrights as “whether the economic loss doctrine and statute of limitations barred [their] fraud in the inducement claims against Louisburg and Williams.” Our Supreme Court's order granting review specifically said that review was granted “with respect to issue 3 only, regarding the application of the economic loss doctrine.” In the same order, the Supreme Court affirmed our decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded with directions to consider the economic-loss-doctrine issue in light of David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011). In David, which came out 8 months after the Albright decision, our Supreme Court reviewed all of the published Kansas appellate cases involving the economic-loss doctrine except for Albright. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he economic loss doctrine should not bar claims by homeowners seeking to recover economic damages resulting from negligently performed residential construction services.”

The Kansas Supreme Court noted that the scope of the economic doctrine "is still unfolding," id., and has refused to apply the doctrine to all claims. See Rinehart, 297 Kan. at 936-41, 305 P.3d at 630-33 (economic loss doctrine no bar to negligent misrepresentation claim); David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 701-02, 270 P.3d 1102, 1114-15 (2011) (economic loss doctrine no bar to homeowners' claim for negligently performed construction services). Instead, the Kansas Supreme Court uses the following test to decide whether a claim arises in tort or contract:

Thus, there is caselaw in Indiana suggesting that Indiana courts would not apply the SELD in this case outside the context of a failure of performance of goods or services.In David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court declined to extend the ELD beyond product liability law to apply to claims by homeowners against service contractors because the rationales for the rule as applied in the product liability context did not apply to the homeowner claims. See id. at 700, 270 P.3d 1102.