Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for Indemnity. H. Economic Loss Doctrine Defendant argues that an essential element of each of Plaintiffs tort-based causes of action is an injury or damage proximately caused by Defendant’s tortious conduct. Defendant asserts that for each tort-based cause of action, the economic loss rule bars recovery because Plaintiff has not put forth evidence showing tangible, physical injury to the Wellfield. Under Ohio law, the economic loss rule “prevents recovery in tort of damages for purely economic losses. The well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.” Ashtabula River Corp. Grp. II v. Conrail, Inc., 549 F.Supp.2d 981, 987 (N.D.Ohio 2008) . In other words, “indirect economic damages
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed
B. holding plaintiffs public nuisance claim was barred by the economic loss rule because it wasnt actually a landowner of the site and thus there was no allegation of harm to any property
C. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties
D. holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims
E. holding there was no claim and no basis for a claim of surprise concerning allegation of a former conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.