In Charlie Brown Construction Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 797 P.2d 946 (1990), the Court considered a situation in which the subcontractors on a subdivision project approved by the City brought an action against the City to recover for unpaid work following the subdivider's default. One of the claims for relief was that the City negligently released funds deposited by the subdivider and failed to require the subdivider to post a payment bond as mandated by City ordinance. On appeal, the city argued that appellants suffered only economic losses, and therefore, the negligence claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine The Court disagreed and stated that: this case is readily distinguishable from the economic loss cases we have decided. . . . Both Stern and Central Bit are cases where individuals and entities who suffered damage to their economic expectancies because of allegedly defective products sought recovery from the parties participating in the supplying of the product. As we explained in Central Bit, this rule is really the seller foreseeability rule for consequential damages first enunciated in Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854). Here, appellants' damages were not caused by a faulty product. They are not third parties to an injury or tort seeking recovery for derivative harm. Appellants are directly injured parties seeking direct recovery from the tortfeasor. It is not consequential damages they seek but direct damages from the failure to perform a mandatory act. . . . Additionally, although appellants did not suffer property injury in the more traditional tort sense in which we generally view the matter, it is not at all clear that they did not suffer an injury to property. They certainly suffered injury to their respective property interests in the amount of their unpaid claims when they performed labor and added materials to the city's land. Also, given the context of the dispute, it would be disingenuous for the city to claim that appellants' injuries were unforeseeable. . . . As the purely economic recovery rule is bound up in foreseeability, the rule enunciated in Stern and Central Bit is simply inapplicable to this case. (Charlie Brown, 106 Nev. at 507-09, 797 P.2d at 952-53.) Charlie Brown Construction Co. v. Boulder City failed to recognize that the damages at issue were strictly economic losses, not cognizable in tort.