Can a plaintiff recover under strict liability when a defect in one component of a house causes injury to other component parts of the house?

Rather, the question is whether a plaintiff can recover under strict liability when a defect in one component part of a house causes injury to other component parts of the house, but not to persons or property apart from the structure. Defendant asserts such damage constitutes nothing more than "injury to the product itself," a loss for which strict liability compensation is barred by the economic loss rule of Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9. It argues damage to a defective product itself is simply the product's failure to function properly, for which the only remedy lies in a warranty action through which the disappointed buyer can seek to recoup the benefit of its bargain.