(plaintiffs purchased a pre-engineered building to serve as their personal residence and business location; contract entered into by plaintiffs personally and not their LLC, but defendant knew of dual purpose of building; quality issues arose with respect to building and plaintiffs refused to pay due to dissatisfaction with defendant's repair jobs; defendant filed mechanics' lien; plaintiffs and their LLC sued and trial court jury found in favor of plaintiffs for $108,017.13 in damages on breach of contract and warranty claims; trial court jury returned verdict for plaintiffs on deceptive acts and practices claim under KS Consumer Protection Act, and returned verdict on negligent misrepresentation claim for plaintiff's LLC of $149,824.65 in economic damages (due to need to rent space elsewhere, lost production, etc.); on appeal, defendant claimed that economic loss doctrine barred LLC's negligent misrepresentation claim because of lack of privity and appellate court agreed; on further review, KS Supreme Court rejected use of privity as bright-line test for determining application of economic loss doctrine; KS does not use economic loss doctrine to enforce boundary between contract and tort law, but KS courts determine nature of claim based on facts and pleadings with question one of whether defendant owed plaintiff duty imposed by law independent of contract; in present case, defendant owed LLC duty independent of contract; Court then determined that purpose of economic loss doctrine would not be furthered by applying it in this case).