In TiaraCondominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. Mar. 7, 2013) (No. 10-1022), the Supreme Court of Florida accepted the following question of state law certified for review by the Eleventh Circuit concerning the scope of Florida’s economic loss rule: “Does the economic loss rule bar an insured’s suit against an insurance broker where the parties are in contractual privity with one another and damages sought are solely for economic losses?” The economic loss rule prohibits any recovery in tort, and limits the recovery to contract damages, where the only damages suffered by a party are economic losses, meaning damages for inadequate value, costs of repair or replacement of a defective product or consequent loss of profits, without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property. The court held that this doctrine should be limited to product liability cases, and overruled all Florida precedent that had expanded the economic loss rule to other areas of the law.