United States maritime tort jurisdiction extends to all incidents that: (1) occur on navigable waters (situs)1 and (2) bear “a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity” (status)2. Absent a relevant statute, the courts, sitting in admiralty, are to apply general maritime law3. The Supreme Court has traditionally drawn from maturing federal and state court decisions to fashion controlling principles of admiralty tort law4. Whether damage to the product itself without any attending economic losses is recoverable under strict liability tort principles has been answered by three distinct “land-based” approaches. First, the majority position was set forth in Seely v. White Motor Co. 5, when the California Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for economic loss damages caused by a defective product. The court held that the damages sought for repair costs, recovery of the purchase price and lost profits, related to the plaintiff’s contract expectation, not the defendant’s tortious conduct6. Secondly, the leading case recognizing a cause of action in strict liability for economic loss is the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Santor v. A and M Karagheusian Inc. 7 In Santor, the court held that the purchaser could maintain an action against the manufacturer based upon strict liability in tort even though his loss was purely economic because, as in cases involving personal injury and property damage, a manufacturer of a defective product is in a better position to insure against injury and bear the cost of defective products than are individual consumers8. Thirdly, an intermediate position has permitted a strict