In Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, homeowners brought an action against window manufacturers, suppliers and installers. They asserted that the windows were defective and that the defects had caused property damage, including damage to framing, drywall, stucco, insulation, paint, baseboards, and floor and wall coverings. ( Id. at p. 476.) They framed strict liability and negligence causes of action. The trial court granted summary adjudication on the strict liability cause of action in favor of the window manufacturers. (Ibid.) The appellate court issued a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order. ( Id. at p. 477.) The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the manufacturers could be subject to strict products liability in tort. ( Id. at pp. 481, 485.) One of the grounds upon which the defendant manufacturers sought to have the trial court ruling upheld was the economic loss rule. They argued that the product was the entire house, not the windows in isolation, and that since the only damage was to the product itself, not to any "other property," the economic loss rule barred recovery. ( Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 483.) The Supreme Court disagreed, stating: "California decisional law has long recognized that the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated." (Ibid.) The Supreme Court acknowledged the narrow scope of its opinion. It stated that it had "no occasion ... to consider whether defective raw materials should be treated in the same manner as component parts or whether there may be situations in which the economic loss rule would bar recovery for damages that a defective component part causes to other portions of the finished product of which it is a part. We hold only that, under California decisional law, the economic loss rule does not bar a homeowner's recovery in tort for damage that a defective window causes to other parts of the home in which it has been installed." ( Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 484.) The Supreme Court in Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at page 484 indicated its approval of the portion of the Casey affirming the nonsuit on the negligence cause of action because of the failure to prove damage to any portion of the property other than the defective windows. The court stated quite broadly: "In summary, the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to 'other property,' that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself. " ( Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 483.) The California Supreme Court held manufacturer of windows installed in mass-produced homes strictly liable for harm resulting from manufacturing and design defects in the windows. The court rejected the window maker's claim that it should not be subject to strict products liability because it "merely supplied component parts" that were assembled and installed by others. (Id. at pp. 479-480.) "The issue is not whether the product was sold fully assembled or in parts, but rather whether the defect that resulted in the alleged damage existed when the windows left the manufacturers' control." (Id. at p. 480.) The Supreme Court held a manufacturer of windows installed in a mass-produced home during its construction could be strictly liable in tort for injuries to other parts of the structure in which the defective windows were installed. ( Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 476.) Nonetheless, in reviewing the application of the economic loss rule to the claims of the homeowners before it, the Court emphasized that " the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to 'other property,' that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself. " ( Id. at p. 483.) Tort recovery was permissible against the window manufacturer, the Court explained, because " California decisional law has long recognized that the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated. ... 'The concept of recoverable physical injury or property damage' has over time 'expanded to include damage to one part of a product caused by another, defective part.'" ( Id. at pp. 483-484.)