WPCڶ Km݄Nц[NFdXzq(WTPH$I }gMGbV"q͡SRԏ]Āe c)ILk@S gj'8b T< E% |(r`,m4^.<o>w`r^&`]. lgoe2i.B[J!esNu9 G ~n-t&J ǟEn,u Ň |}3>E[t8 ;I42DvM;`VwKX9a3]7{tghk@G:L~z Diu=5̭z~}+eaiGxó|;}n-=?2^kqnf tah5oj[4HzC}Wζ|lI>0mRXfcMj 0nnrU>N 0C  a&/)@C"WFyFFFSU 0 VW#!WUyNX %,Y 0 (2YNZY\Y `"9`[`^ q`w@}`4`` m```HaaaH}H}[avmmmÖÖ"؝"M D(((Ml 01p 0= 0ޡ 0> 0O 0 0ͦ 0a 0 0 09J 0 02_ 0 0: 0ǫ 0_L 0  0k 0 B* D3 BD Ca D+{ 0 0m 06T 0 0: 0h̵ 0F4U6zU*<:Default ParaXXXXXX'    0 .   \  `&Times New Roman($      x$XsXXXX,XXXs  15    _dXX,ԀDdTheNewJerseystatute,N.J.Stat.2A:53A25(L.1995,2000),provides:#dD#Dd e    X  X b.Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofanyotherlaw,noaccountantshallbeliablefordamagesfornegligencearisingoutofandinthecourseofrenderinganyprofessionalaccountingserviceunless: X X(1)Theclaimantagainsttheaccountantwasthe {  U accountantsclient;or  (2)Theaccountant:dD e  #Ddg#(a)knewatthetimeoftheengagementbytheclient,or k agreedwiththeclientafterthetimeoftheengagement,thattheprofessionalaccountingservicerenderedtotheclientwouldbemadeavailabletotheclaimant,whowasspecificallyidentifiedtotheaccountantinconnectionwithaspecifiedtransactionmadebytheclaimant;  (b)knewthattheclaimantintendedtorelyupontheprofessionalaccountingserviceinconnectionwiththatspecifiedtransaction;and  (c)directlyexpressedtotheclaimant,bywordsorconduct,theaccountantsunderstandingoftheclaimantsintendedrelianceontheprofessionalaccountingservice;or  (3)Inthecaseofabankclaimant,theaccountantacknowledgedthebanksintendedrelianceontheprofessionalaccountingserviceandtheclientsknowledgeofthatrelianceinawrittencommunication.B.` hp x (#XB  !  ݛ_X,XXX    E1tt4 <DL!d#XE D   1  dXX,ԀDdAccordingtothe_ԢKatzses_,asaresultofamathematicalerror,whichwent  undetectedforyears,WS&Boverstatedtheaccountsreceivable.Theeffectoftheerrorwastheoverstatingofinventorybyapproximately10times.The_ԢKatzses_claimedfurtherthatWS&Bfailedtoobtain,asitshouldhave,independentconfirmationofthereceivablesfromthecreditors,separateandapartfromtheinputoftheownersofthecompany.   U   Contrarytothe_ԢKatzses_,WS&Bmaintainedthatthe_ԢKatzses_damagesweretheresultofafraudulentfinancingschemeperpetratedbyPhilipKatz.ItpointsoutthatPhilipKatzservedatwoyearsentenceinthefederalpenitentiaryforthatscheme.XsXD#X,XXXs#    !  _X,XXX    ?+ 4 <DL!X?  4  dXX,DdԀRestatement(Second)ofTorts522,dealingwithnegligentlysupplying  informationfortheguidanceofothers,provides: X X?+4 4 <DL!X? (1)Onewho,inthecourseofhisbusiness,profession,oremployment,orinanyothertransactioninwhichhehasapecuniaryinterest,suppliesfalseinformationfortheguidanceofothersintheirbusinesstransactions,issubjecttoliabilityforpecuniarylosscausedtothembytheirjustifiablerelianceupontheinformation,ifhefailstoexercisereasonablecareorcompetenceinobtainingorcommunicatingtheinformation. (2)ExceptasstatedinSubsection(3),theliabilitystatedinSubsection(1)islimitedtolosssuffered: X X<(  <DL!4X<(a)bythepersonoroneofalimitedgrouporpersonsforwhosebenefitandguidanceheintendstosupplytheinformationorknowsthattherecipientintendsto   supplyit;and(b)throughrelianceuponitinatransactionthatheintendstheinformationtoinfluenceorknowsthattherecipientsointendsorinasubstantiallysimilartransaction.  B+ 4 <DL!  XBSeealso_Bily_Ԁv.Arthur#dD#DdYoung&Company,3Cal.4th370,834P.2d745(1992).#dD#X,Xd    | !  _X,XXX    ?+ 4 <DL!X?  6  XsXhX,DXXsԀInparticular,theCourtstated:   X X?+4 4 <DL!X?  [The]allegationsaresufficienttoplaceSchumanatthetimeofhisinjuriesuponthepremisesofthedefendanteitherastheemployeeofQueenCityWindowCleaningCompanyprosecutingtheworkhisemployersenthimtodounderdirectionofPillar,thedefendantsmanager,ordoingworkuponthepremisesunderthedirectionofthedefendantsmanagerwhichwasnotcontemplatedbyhisemployer,orthathewasthereasappellantsinvitee,butitisclearthat,regardlessofwhethertheproofplaceshiminthefirst,secondorthirdoftheseclassifications,appellantowedhimsomeduty. X X?+ 4 <DL!4X?VirginiaDareStoresv._Schman_,175Md.287,291,1A.2d897,899(1938).   VirginiaDareinvolvedpersonalinjuriesand,foratime,thecauseofactionlay   onlywhentherewerepersonalinjuriesinvolved.SeeHoltv._Kolker_,189Md.  636,639,57A.2d287,288(1948).Thatrestrictionhasnotappliedsincethedecisionin_Brack_Ԁv.Evans,230Md.548,187A.2d880(1963)(holdingsufficient  thenegligenceandfraudulentmisrepresentationallegationsinstocktransaction).#dD#X,Xd  !  _ X,XXX    -,Xwy(zΤ-X-  7  ] XX,Ԁd ]DdThedefendantattorneyin_Flaherty_Ԁv.Weinberg,303Md.116,492A.2d618  (1985#dD #Dd)wasalsosuedforprofessionalmalpractice.  #dD#X,Xd % !  _X,XXX    ?+ 4 <DL!X?  8  dXX,DdԀInadditiontotheanalysissetoutabove,theCourtusedlanguageindicatingthat  theholdingwaslimitedtothelegalmalpracticecontext: Basedonourreviewoftheabovecases,wethinkitclearthatMaryland,asageneralrule,adherestothestrictprivityrule in attorneymalpracticecases._Flaherty_Ԁv.Weinberg,303Md.at  130,492A.2dat625(emphasisadded).Moreover,expressingtheconcernofthepossibledifferinginterestsofthethirdpartyandtheclientiftheattorneyowesadutytoboththemortgagorandthemortgagee,wequotedthenJudge_Wilner_,laterChiefJudgeofthatcourt,writingfortheCourtofSpecialAppealsin_Clagett_Ԁv.   _Dacy_,47Md.App.23,29,420A.2d1285,1292(1980),whoobservedthat    [_a]ttorneys_Ԁarenotquitethefreeagentsassomeothersareintheworldofcommerce.Therearewellrecognizedlimitations,judiciallyimposedandenforced,uponhowtheymayconductthemselves,andwhotheymay,andmaynotrepresentincertainsituations._Flaherty_,supraat138,492A.2dat629.   Ourlatercasesconfirmthatthestrictprivityruleappliesonlyinattorneymalpracticecases.SeeNoblev.Bruce,349Md.730,744,709A.2d1264,1271  (1998);Fergusonv.Cramer,349Md.760,765,709A.2d1279,1282(1998).In  Noble,weheldthatnonclienttestamentarybeneficiariesmaynotbringa  malpracticeactionagainstanattorneyfornegligentestateplanningadviceallegedlygiventothetestatororfornegligentlydraftingthetestatorswill.Discussingtheprivityrequirementandnotingthat [_i]n_Ԁattorneymalpracticecases,MarylandgenerallyadherestothestrictprivityrulefirstexplicatedbythisCourtin_Wlodarek_Ԁv.Thrift,Fergusonat738,709A.2dat1268,theNobleCourtobserved  U that althoughtheremaybeatrendtorelaxorabandonthestrictprivityrule,anumberofjurisdictionsstillretaintherulethat,inattorneymalpracticecases,  absentfraud...,anattorneyisnotliabletoanonclientforharmcausedbytheattorneysnegligenceinthedraftingofawillorplanninganestate.Id.at740,  709A.2dat1269(emphasisadded).Itwenton,id.at74142,709A.2dat1270,to  considerthepublicpolicyconcerns:  8  Applicationofthestrictprivityrequirementinthewilldraftingorestateplanningcontexthasbeenjustifiedbycourtsprimarilyonthefollowingpublicpolicygrounds.Firsttheruleprotectstheattorneysdutyofloyaltytoandeffectiveadvocacyforhisorherclient....Thestrictprivityruleprotectsanattorneysobligationtodirecthisorherfullattentiontotheneedsoftheclient.Anattorneyspreoccupationorconcernwithpotentialnegligenceclaimsbythirdpartiesmightresultinadiminutioninthequalityofthelegalservicesreceivedbytheclientastheattorneymightweightheclientsinterestsagainsttheattorneysfearofliabilitytoathirdparty.Second,thereexiststhedangerofplacingconflictingdutiesonanattorneyduringtheestateplanningprocessifanonconflictispermittedtomaintainacauseofactionagainstatestatorsattorney.Asaresult,anattorneysloyaltymightbecomedividedbetweenthetestator/clientandthebeneficiaries.Third,courtsfearthatabsentthestrictprivityruletherewouldbenolimitastowhomalawyerwouldbeobligated....Furthermore,partiestoacontractforlegalserviceswouldloosecontroloftheiragreementifliabilitywithoutprivitywerepermitted.Asonecommentatornoted,thestrictprivityrulehasbeenretainedinsomejurisdictionsbecause    notonlyshouldanattorneyknowinadvancewhoisbeingrepresentedandforwhatpurpose,butalsotheattorneyshouldbeabletocontrolthescopeoftherepresentationandtheriskstobeaccepted.Imposingliabilityinfavorofnonclients,generallyspeaking,threatensthoseinterests.Inthreateningtheinterestsoftheattorney,theinterestsofpotentialclientsmayalsobecompromised;theymightnotbeabletoobtainlegalservicesaseasilyinsituationswherepotentialthirdpartyliabilityexists.I   E14 <DL!!XE )%% (internalcitationsomitted).InFerguson,theCourtaddressedtheissue whethera  beneficiaryunderawillmaymaintainacauseofactionforprofessionalmalpracticeagainstanattorneyretainedbythepersonalrepresentativeofthetestatorsestate.Id.at762,709A.2dat1280.Itsstatementofthepolicyreasons  underlyingthestrictprivityrule,id.at77173,709A.2dat128486,supportsthe  limitedapplicationof_Flaherty_.#dD#X,Xd  !  _X,XXX    ?+ 4 <DL!X?  9  dXX,ԀDdSweetsCatalog,astheCourtexplainedinVillageofCrossKeysv.U.S.  Gypsum,315Md.741,758n.6,556A.2d1126,1134n.6(1989),isamulti  volumework,publishedby_McGraw_ԄHillofNewYork,containingbrochuresandfoldersforwhichthemanufacturerspayafee,andsubscriberspurchase.#dD#X,Xd  !  _X,XXX    ?+ 4 <DL!X?  10  dXX,ԀDdInaddition,theCourtconsideredrelevanttotheresolutionofthedutyissuein  Jacques,consistentwith_Glanzer_and_Ultramares_,thepublicnatureofthebanking   business.Jacques,307Md.at541,515A.2dat763.#dD#X,Xd  e      x$XsXXXX,XXXs  13    _ԀXsXXX,DXXsThedecisionin_Ultramares_wasalsoguidedbyitsviewoftheroleofthe e certifiedpublicaccountantandthethirdpartysexpectation.Accordingtothe_Ultramares_court,expandingthedutyofanaccountanttoincludethosewho, u althoughnotclients,useorrelyontheaccountantsworkproductisnotnecessarytoprotecttheincidentalthirdparties.Itreasonedthatitisdoubtfulthattheaveragebusinessmenreceivingacertificatewithoutpayingforitandreceivingitmerelyasoneamongamultitudeofpossibleinvestors,wouldlookforanythingmorethenlegalprotectionagainstfraud.Id.at188,174_N.E._Ԁat448.Indeed, u  judgingfromitsobservationthat publicaccountantsarepubliconlyinthesensethattheirservicesareofferedtoanyonewhochoosestoemploythem,id.,the u   courtapparentlybelievedthattheaccountantsproductisintendedonlyforthebenefitoftheclient.See_Orlinski_,supra,43_DePaul_ԀL.Rev.at874. u  ThatperceptionofthepublicroleofaCPAmaynotreflectthecurrentcommercialrealities.TheAICPAsprofessionalstandardsrefertothepublicresponsibilityofauditors: XN:4),,4 <DL!XN X  Adistinguishingmarkofaprofessionisacceptanceofitsresponsibilitytothepublic.Theaccountingprofessionspublicconsistsofclients,creditgrantors,governments,employers,investors, u U thebusinessandfinancialcommunity,andotherswhorelyontheobjectivityandintegrityofcertifiedpublicaccountantstomaintaintheorderlyfunctioningofcommerce.Thisrelianceimposespublicinterestresponsibilityoncertifiedpublicaccountants. X XT14 <DL!!4),,XXT(2AICPAProfessionalStandards(_CCH_Ԁ1988)53.01.).Inaddition,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrecognizedthepublicfunctionoftheCPAauditorasareasontodenyworkproductprotectiontotheauditorsworkpaper: XW:4),,4 <DL!X!#W X  Bycertifyingthepublicreportsthatcollectivelydepictacorporationsfinancialstatus,theindependentauditorassumesapublicresponsibilitytranscendinganyemploymentrelationshipwiththeclient.Theindependentpublicaccountantperformingthisspecialfunctionowesultimateallegiancetothecorporationscreditorsandstockholders,aswellastotheinvestingpublic.Thispublicwatchdogfunctiondemandsthattheaccountantmaintaintotalindependencefromtheclientatalltimesandrequirescompletefidelitytothepublictrust.  X  X]:),,4 <DL!4),,XX]UnitedStatesv.ArthurYoung&Co.,465U.S.805,817818,104S.Ct.1495, e 1503,79L.Ed.2d826,836(1984).#dD##X,Xd#  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  3    _dXX,ԀDdAsweshallsee,thisapproachisnotthemajorityapproach.#dD#  Dd(2x$ !  XsXXXX,XXXs  0  3|PHP LaserJet 5MP,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  2    _XsXXX,ԀDXXsMarylandRule2-501governssummaryjudgmentpracticeinthisState.Section  2501(e)provides: X X  Thecourtshallenterjudgmentinfavoroforagainstthemovingpartyifthemotionandresponseshowthatthereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthatthepartyinwhosefavorjudgmentisenteredisentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw. Xu Xg 4  4 Summaryjudgmentisnotasubstitutefortrial.Itspurposeisnottotrythecaseorresolvefactualdisputes,buttodeterminewhetherafactualcontroversyexistsrequiringatrial.See_Goodwich_Ԁv.SinaiHosp.ofBaltimore,Inc.,343Md.   185,205206,680A.2d1067,1077(1996).Thedeterminationofwhetheragenuinedisputeofmaterialfactexistsand,ifnot,whattherulingoflawshouldbe,requiresthereviewingcourttoresolveallinferencestobedrawnfromthepleadings,admissions,andaffidavits,etc.againstthemovingparty.Inmakingthatdetermination,evenwhentheunderlyingfactsareundisputed,allinferencesmustbedrawnagainstthemovingparty.SeeHartford_Ins_.Co.v.ManorInnof  Bethesda,Inc.,335Md.135,145,642A.2d219,224(1994).  #dD#           ѽt) E E    {vMq):i+00U   > x$XsXXXX,XXXs  14    _ԀdXX,DdSee_Nycal_#dD#DdԀCorporationv._Kpmg_ԀPeatMarwick_LLP_.,426Mass.491,500,688 e N.E.2d1368#dDH#Dd,1374(1998);#dD+#Dd_Boykin_Ԁv.ArthurAndersen&Co.,639So.2d504, u 509(Ala.1994);St.PaulFire&MarineInsuranceCompany,v.ToucheRoss& u Company,244Neb.408,424,507N.W.2d275,285(1993);#dD|#DdԀ_Bily_,3Cal.4th370, u U 413414,834P.2dat772-73;_Eldred_Ԁv._McGladrey_,_Hendrickson_Ԁ&_Pullen_,468 e N.W.2d218,221(Iowa1991);#dD#DdԀLandBank_Assn_Ԁv.Sloane,825S.W.2d439,442 e (_Tex_.1991);#dDd#DdԀFirstFloridaBank,N.A.v.MaxMitchell&Co.,558So.2d9,14-15 e (Fla.1990);TheFirstNationalBankof_Bluefield_Ԁ_v.Crawford_#dD?#Dd,182W.Va.107, e 110,386S.E.2d310#dDb#Dd,313(1989);#dD#DdԀSeldenv.Burnett,754P.2d256(Alaska1988);#dD+#Dd e _Raritan_ԀRiverSteelCo.v.Cherry,_Bekaert_Ԁ&Holland,322N.C.200,214,367 e  S.E.2d609,617(1988);#dD#DdԀ_Haberman_Ԁv.WashingtonPub.PowerSupply_Sys_.,109 e  _Wn_.2d107,161,744P.2d1032,1067(1987),modified,110_Wn_.2d24,750P.2d e  254(1988);#dD #Dd_Badische_ԀCorp.v._Caylor_,257Ga.132133,356S.E.2d198,199- e  200(1987);_Christenson_Ԁv.CommonwealthLandTitleIns.Co.,666P.2d302 e  (Utah1983);#dD= #DdԀ_Spherex_ԀInc.v.AlexanderGrant&Co.,122N.H.898,903,451 e  A.2d1308,1312(1982);#dD #Dd_Haddon_ԀViewInv.Co.v.Coopers&Lybrand,70Ohio e  St.2d154,15657,436N.E.2d212,214-15(1982);#dDy #Dd_Bonhiver_Ԁv._Graff_,311Minn. e  111,123,248N.W.2d291,299(1976);#dD[#DdԀ#dD9#Dd_Kohala_Ԁ#dD|#DdAgric.v#dD#.DdDeloitte&Touche,#dD4#DdԀ86 e  Haw.301,322,949P.2d141 , 162 (HawaiiApp.1997),opinioncurrentlyon { remand;#dD#DdԀ#dD[#DdStandardChartered_P.L.C._Ԁv.PriceWaterhouse,190Ariz.6,28,945P.2d  317,339(Ariz.App.1996),ascorrectedafterreconsiderationdenied;#dD#DdML-Lee  AcquisitionFund,L.P.v.Deloitte&Touche,320S.C.143,158,463S.E.2d618,  627(S.C.App.1995),_affd_Ԁinpartand_revd_Ԁinpartonothergrounds,327S.C.  238,489S.E.2d470,472(1997);#dD#Dd_MidAmerican_ԀBank&TrustCo.v.Harrison,  851S.W.2d563,564-66(Mo.App.1993);#dDM#DdԀLawOfficesofLawrenceJ._Stockler_,  P.C.v.Rose,174Mich.App.14,41,436N.W.2d70,82(1989).SeealsoBowers  v.AlliedInv.Corp.,822F.Supp.835,839(_D.Me_.1993)(Mainelaw);First_Natl_  BankofCommercev._Monco_ԀAgency,911F.2d1053,1061(5thCir.1990)  (Louisianalaw);_Ingram_ԀIndus.v._Nowicki_,527_F.Supp_.683,684(_E.D.Ky_.1981)  (Kentuckylaw);_Bunge_ԀCorp.v._Eide_,372F.Supp.1058,1062-63(_D.N.D._Ԁ1974)  (NorthDakotalaw);_Rusch_ԀFactors,Inc.v.Levin,284F.Supp.85,91-92(_D.R.I._  1968)(RhodeIslandlaw)#dD#Dd;#dD#ԀDdBethlehemSteelCorp.v.Ernst&_Whinney_,822  S.W.2d592,595(Tenn.1991)(adoptingtestmodifyingsection552).#dD #DdԀThe  0 PennsylvaniaSupremeCourthasalsoadoptedSection552oftheRestatementofTorts.See_Rempel_Ԁv.NationwideLifeIns.Co.,471Pa.404,408,370A.2d366, "0 367(1977).#dD#  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  18    _dXX,ԀDdAfterquotingtheCreditAlliancetest,thecourtsummarizeditasfollows:   0    8 4 Theindicia,whiledistinct,areinterrelatedandcollectivelyrequireathirdpartyclaimingharmtodemonstratearelationshiporbondwiththeonceremovedaccountantssufficientlyapproachingprivitybasedonsomeconductonthepartoftheaccountants. 44 rSecurityPacificBusinessCredit,Inc.,v.MarwickMain&Co.,79N.Y.2d695,   70203,597N.E.2d1080,1083(1992)(internalcitationsomitted).ThecourtmadeclearthattheonlyoneoftheCreditAlliancecriteriaatissueinthecasewas   thethird,theaccountantslinkingconduct.Id.at709,597N.E.2dat#dD#DdԀ1088   (dissentingopinion).#dDd#Dd     x$XsXXXX,XXXs  11    _ԀXsXXX,DXXsUndertraditionalcontractlaw,anaccountantowedadutyexclusivelytohis  clientwithwhomhewasinprivity.See_Orlinski_,AnAccountantsLiabilityto   ThirdParties:_Bily_Ԁv.ArthurYoung&Co.,43_DePaul_ԀL.Rev.859,87172   (1994);BrianK.Kirby&ThomasL.Davis,AccountantLiability:NewExposure   foranOldProfession,36SanDiegoL.Rev.574(1991).Somecourtsand   commentatorscontinuetofavorastrictprivityapproach.Thisapproach,themostnarrowpositiontakenwithrespecttoaccountantliabilitytothirdparties,isfollowedbyonlyafewstates.Seee.g.,Wardv.Ernst&Young,246_Va_.317,   32324,435S.E.2d628,631(1993)(requiringprivity).#dD##X,Xd#    x$XsXXXX,XXXs  17    _dXX,ԀDdAlternatively,thecourtofferedananalysisbasedoncontract.See_Glanzer_Ԁv.  Shepard,233N.Y.236,241,135_N.E._Ԁ275,277(1922).Thecourtobserved,in 0 thatregardhowever, [_t]hese_Ԁothermethodsofapproacharriveatthesamegoal,thoughthepathsmayseemattimestobeartificialorcircuitous.Id.#dD#  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  12    _ԀXsXXX,DXXsWhilethe_Ultramares_courtwasclearinitsstatementofitspositiononthe e unfairnessofimposingonthedefendantsanindeterminateliability,toanindeterminateclassofpeople,foranindeterminateperiodoftime,bycontrastingthefactsinthatcasewiththosein_Glanzer_,inwhichthethirdpartywasthe end u andaimofthetransaction,theremayhavebeencreatedafalseimpressionthatitsholdingrequiresacontractualprivityorthatofathirdpartybeneficiary._Ultramares_,supra,255N.Y.at182,17_N.E._Ԁat445.Certainly,CreditAlliance u  Corp.v.ArthurAnderson&Co.,65N.Y.2d536,483N.E.2d110(1985)and u  othersubsequentcasesmakeclearthat_Ultramares_doesnotrequirestrictprivityor u  thirdpartybeneficiarystatusasaconditiontothirdpartysuitsagainstaccountants.#dD##X,Xd#  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  19    _dXX,ԀDdThedissentingopinioninSecurityPacific,agreeingwiththeinterpretation  givenCreditAlliancebyothercourts,seeFirst_Natl_.BankofCommercev. 0 MonacoAgency,911F2d1053,1059(5thCir.1990)(requiringthatthe 0 accountantsmanifestconductunderscoringtheirunderstandingofaparticularnonclientsrelianceupontheworkproduct);Huangv.Sentinel_Govt_.Sec.,709 0 F._Supp_Ԁ1290,1298(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1989)(determiningthattouchstoneoftheinquiry isnot...formaldirectcommunication,butrathersomelinkofthedefendanttoplaintiffwhichevincesdefendantsunderstandingorplaintiffsreliance) 0  U (internalcitationomitted),#XsXD#DXXsԀopinedthat [_t]he_ԀlanguageoftheCreditAlliance  opinionsuggeststhatwhatiscalledforisanevidentiaryshowingofsomecommunicationorcontactsdemonstratingtheaccountantsawarenessofthethirdpartysreliance.SecurityPacific,79N.Y.2dat708,597N.E.2dat1087.#dD##X,Xd#dXX,  x$XsXXXX,XXXs  16    _dXX,ԀDdSomecommentators,seee.g.,_Bily_,3Cal.4that388,834P.2dat75455,have e statedthatthelinkingconductrequirementofCreditAllianceiswhat { U distinguishestheprivityapproachfromtheRestatementapproach.Clearly,theRestatementsimpositiononaccountantsofadutyofcarefornegligence,butlimitedtoadefinablegroupofpersonswithrespecttowhomthedefendanthasactualknowledgethattheywouldrelyonagiventransactionissubstantiallysimilartotheCreditAlliancesthirdrequirementoflinkingconductevincingthe e accountantsunderstandingoftheplaintiffsreliance.Indeed,if,asthecourtinHuangv.Sentinel_Govt_.Sec.,709F._Supp_Ԁ1290,1298(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1989)indicated e  withrespecttothelinkingconductrequirement,thetouchstoneoftheinquiry isnot...formaldirectcommunication,butrathersomelinkofthedefendanttoplaintiffwhichevincesdefendantsunderstandingofplaintiffsreliance,thennodistinctionmayexistbetweenthetwo.SecurityPacificBusinessCredit,Inc.v. e  Peat,MarwickMain&Co.,79N.Y.2d695,597N.E.2d1080(1992),asweshall e  see,hasinterpretedthatrequirementmorerestrictively,however.#dD#            : x$XsXXXX,XXXs  5    _ԀXsXXX,DXXsSeeH.Rosenblum,Inc.v.Adler,93N.J.324,461A.2d138(1983);First_Natl_  Bankv.Crawford,182W._Va_.107,386S.E.2d310(1989)#XsXD#DXXs#dD#Dd;CitizensStateBank  v._Timm_,Schmidt&Co.,113Wis.2d376,335N.W.2d361(1983)#dDF##X,Xd#.0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition #Xd#    \R3' Letter\ #Xd#TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3'T  ('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEKa<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ka<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/Ka<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of IVX4$ ** ddI  B    ?b%2A`Arial?9YX*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dUUUU'dxd ddd'dxd<:zTop of ForIVX4$** ddI  B    ?b%2A`Arial?9YX*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKa<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKa<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial !  ݛ_  B.4 <DL!!XBDXXdD#b*4F,CDwU5* 4*Dd +@"D*<CircuitCourtforBaltimoreCity  CaseNo.95019016#D#0 v ! !   E.p x (#(#(#0*,.81X!EINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFMARYLANDNO.50SEPTEMBERTERM,1998  ___________________________________  _ԢWALPERT_,_ԢSMULLIAN_Ԁ&BLUMENTHAL,P.A.v.GEORGEKATZ,etal.  _________________________________  Bell,C.J.  _ԢEldridge_̀*_Rodowsky_̀**_Chasanow_  Raker  _Wilner_  _ԢCathell_,   p   JJ___________________________________  OpinionbyBell,C.J.  _Wilner_,J.,concurs̀__________________________________  FILED:November21,2000*_Rodowsky_,J.,nowretired,participatedinthehearingandconferenceofthiscasewhileanactivememberofthisCourt;afterbeingrecalledpursuanttotheConstitution,ArticleIV,Section3A,healsoparticipatedinthedecisionandadoptionofthisopinion.#dDK#Dd <)$% **_Chasanow_,J.,nowretired,participatedinthehearingandconferenceofthiscasewhileanactivememberofthisCourtbutdidnotparticipateinthedecisionandadoptionofthisopinion.#dDk#Dd <-() C C8sXXdXXd8  TRX3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T C        Thiscasepresentstheissueofunderwhatcircumstances,ifany,absenta  contractualrelationship,anaccountantisliablefortheeconomiclossesofapartywhoreliedonafinancialreportwhichtheaccountantprepared.TheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCityconcludedthat,underthecircumstancesofthiscasewherethereisnoprivitybetweentheaccountantandplaintiffandtheplaintiffisnottheintendedbeneficiaryoftheaccountantscontractnodutyisowed.Althoughagreeingwiththetrialcourtthattheplaintiffswerenottheintendedbeneficiaries,theCourtofSpecialAppealsneverthelessreversedthejudgmentoftheCircuitCourt.Itheld,inanunreportedopinion,thattherewassufficientevidencefromwhichatrieroffactcouldfindthat,underthecircumstances,adutywasowedtotheplaintiffs.ThisCourtgrantedthepetitionersPetitionforWritofCertiorariinordertoreviewthismatteroffirstimpression.Weagreewiththeintermediateappellatecourtand,accordingly,affirm.   I.      Therespondents,GeorgeandShirleyKatz(the _ԢKatzses_),filedsuitintheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCityagainst_ԢWalpert_,_ԢSmullian_Ԁ&Blumenthal,P.A.( WS&B),thepetitioneraccountants,seekingdamagesfornegligence,grossnegligence,negligentmisrepresentationandbreachofcontract,asaconsequenceofloanstheymadeto_ԢMagnetics_,Inc.,GeorgeKatzsformercompanyandthepetitionersclient.ThecomplaintallegedрthatGeorgeKatzwastheownerandpresidentof_ԢMagnetics_,aprintingsuppliesandpressrepairbusiness,until1987 ,(( DwU D8sXXdXXd8TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3' LetterT   D  when,asaresultoffailinghealth,heretiredasbothownerandoperator.Atthat  time,GeorgeKatzrelinquishedbothhisownershipinterestinthecompanytohiswife, Shirley,andtheirtwosons,givingeachaonethirdinterest,andpassed  controlofthecompanytohisson,Philip.Althoughhecontinuedtobelistedonthebooksaspresident,GeorgeKatzneitherattendedmeetingsoftheboardofdirectorsnorparticipatedinthedaytodaymanagementofthecompany.In1989,GeorgeKatzshealthfurtherdeteriorated.  The_ԢKatzses_Ԁremainedfinanciallyinterestedin,andinvolvedwith,_ԢMagnetics_ԀafterGeorgeKatzsretirement.GeorgeKatzreceivedanannualsalaryof$5,000andMrs.Katz,nowaonethirdowner,received$20,000annuallyasaconsultingfee.Inaddition,the_ԢKatzses_Ԁreceived$120,000ayearasrentalforthebuildingoutofwhichthebusinesswasoperated.g    SubsequenttoGeorgeKatzsrelinquishmentofcontrolof_ԢMagnetics_,PhilipKatzretainedWS&Bas_ԢMagnetics_accountingfirm.WS&Bsdualundertakingthroughitscontractwastoperformannualauditsof_ԢMagnetics_financialstatementsaswellasprepareunauditedreportsforthecompanyeverysixmonths.Inthecourseoftheengagement,itpreparedunauditedcompilationsof_ԢMagnetics_financialstatementsfortheperiodsending:(1)April30,1989;(2)April30,1990;(3)April30,1991;and(4)April30,1992.Moreover,forthosesameyears,WS&Baudited_ԢMagnetics_annualyearendfinancialstatements. *&& Additionally,aspartofthecontractualservicesprovidedto_ԢMagnetics_,WS&Bpreparedpersonalincometaxreturnsforthe_ԢKatzses_Ԁfrom1988through1992,andpreparedanestateplanin1990.    Alsosubsequenttohisretirement,GeorgeKatzandhiswifeenteredintofourfinancialtransactionswith_ԢMagnetics_.In1990,theyloaned_ԢMagnetics_$425,000andthenin1992,theypledged$150,000to_ԢMagnetics_,executedalimitedpaymentguaranteeof$1,000,000to_ԢMagnetics_Ԁandalsosignedanindemnitydeedoftrustandsecurityagreementsecuringadebtpreviouslyincurredby_ԢMagnetics_.    AfteraJune,1993independentauditfoundthatreportedinventoryandaccountsreceivablehadbeeninflatedby_ԢMagnetics_,theBankofBaltimore,_ԢMagnetics_principallender,calledits$2millionloan.Asaresult,_ԢMagnetics_Ԁwasforcedtoceaseoperations,andtheBankofBaltimoretookpossessionofthecompanyspremisesandliquidateditsassets.b    The_ԢKatzses_ԀthereaftersuedWS&Bforthelossestheysufferedasaresultoftheaccountingerrorthatcaused_ԢMagnetics_collapse._Ԣ   1      ף_ԀWS&Bmovedforsummary " Мjudgment,   2      ׀arguingthattherespondentscouldnotestablishthatWS&Bowedthem  aduty,thatanyactofnegligenceonWS&Bspartcausedinjurytothem,orthattherespondentschangedtheirpositiontotheirdetrimentinrelianceonfinancialstatementspreparedbyWS&B.CentraltoitsargumentwasWS&Bsassertionthatnodutyrantotherespondentsfromitscontractwith_Magnetics_Ԁfortheperformanceandpreparationofauditsandreports.Insupportofitssummaryjudgmentmotion,WS&BsubmittedtheaffidavitofPatrickM.Tracy,whichstatedthatWS&Bwasnotaskedtoexpressanopinionontheadvisabilityofthe  respondentsoranyoneelselendingmoneytoMagnetics,nordiditexpressanopinionastowhethertherespondentsshouldsecureMagneticsdebt.Furthermore,WS&Barguedthattherespondentswerenot,andcouldnotshowthattheywere,thirdpartybeneficiariestothecontractbetween_Magnetics_ԀandWS&B.X!    Inresponse,therespondentsproffered,viatheaffidavitofGeorgeKatz,therelationshipbetweentherespondentsandWS&B,emphasizingthemeetingstheyhadpriortotherespondentsmakingtheloansto,andsecuringthedebtfor,_Magnetics_.TheiroppositionessentiallystressedthatGeorgeKatzhadseveralmeetingswithWS&Bpersonneltolookovertheauditsandreportsof_Magnetics_priortomakingloansto,orsecuringloansfor,_Magnetics_,andthatWS&Bpersonnelknewthatthe_Katzses_ԀhadreliedoninformationsuppliedbyWS&Bindecidingtolendmoniesto,ortosecureloansfor,_Magnetics_.AssummarizedbytheCourtofSpecialAppeals,theaffidavit,relatingtothe$425,000loan,setforththefollowing:V'* X X`@4#z#z&),4 <DL!X(#(#0*X`  AccordingtoMr.Katz,[i]nconnectionwiththe$425,000.00loan,sometimebetweenNovember1,1989andFebruary1,1990,PhillipKatz,Mr.TraceyandImetfacetofaceinMr.Traceysofficeat_Walpert_,_Smullian_Ԁ&Blumenthalfortheexpresspurposeofdiscussingtheabovementionedloan.Mr.Katzcontinued: X XuR ljnjnpssuvΤ),,4 <DL!4#z#z-,XXuThepurposeinmeetingwithMr.Traceywasformetodetermineifitwasadvisabletomakethat[$425,000]loanto_Magnetics_Ԁbaseduponthethenexistingfinancialconditionasthatrelatedtoitsabilitytorepaytheloaninaccordancewiththeloanterms.... +'' Duringthatmeeting,Mr.Traceyhadpresented_Magnetics_,Inc.acashflowanalysisandaprojectedprofitandlossstatementforthecomingyearbasedontheanticipatedcashflowandsales.+ X o:4#z&),4 <DL! ljnjnpssuvΤ),,Xo X  Mr.Katzfurtherstated,[i]nconnectionwithmyloananalysis,Mr.TraceyprovidedmewithacopyoftheOctober31,19[89]Magnetics,Inc.audit....MrKatzsworethat,atthemeetingwithMr.Tracey,ImadetheWS&BrepresentativesawarethatIwouldconsiderlendingmoneytoMagnetics,[buttheloan]wasdependentonMagneticsfinancialconditionandtheinformationwhichWS&Bprovidedhim,whichincludedWS&BfinancialreportspreparedforMagnetics.0 XK14 <DL!4#z-,XK  XThatknowledge,arguedtherespondents,wasenoughtotriggeradutyofcaretothemfromWS&B.  Atthehearingonthemotionforsummaryjudgment,therespondentscounselsummarized:3 XW:4#z&),4 <DL!XXW X [Therelationshipbetweenthepartiesisimportant,]baseduponthemeetingsthatGeorgeKatzhadwithMr.TracyandJulieSimermeyer[theaccountantwhoperformedmuchoftheMagneticsauditwork]priortomakingthe$450,000loanandpriortomakingthe$150,000loan,andhisreviewofthefinancialinformationthatWS&Bsenthim[Mr.Katz]directlywhichincludedthemidyearreviewsandtheyearendaudits,andhisagreeingtofurthersecurecreditextensionsbaseduponwhatinhisviewappearedtobeacompanywhosefinancialposturehadchangeddrasticallysincethetimehecontrolledthecompany. X4 XH.4 <DL!!4#z-,XH  AgreeingwithWS&Bthat Marylandlawrequiresstrictprivityoritsequivalent[,]whichisadirectrelationship,andthattherespondentswerenottheintendedbeneficiariesofthecontractbetweenMagneticsandWS&B,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofWS&B.Itconcludedthattherewas +'' nodutyflowingfromWS&Btotherespondents:XsXD  8 X XQ:4#z&),4 <DL!X!QDXXs [W]edonotseetheexistenceofarelationshipthatMarylandlaw  recognizesbetweentheaccountingfirmand[therespondents].Wedonotseeitinactuality,andwedonotseeanyequivalenttoitsuchthatwouldallow[therespondents]torecoverdirectlyagainstthisaccountingfirmforthedemiseofthisbusinessandtheresultantlossesexperiencedby[therespondents]. X XH.4 <DL!!4#z-,XH     TherespondentstimelynotedanappealtotheCourtofSpecialAppeals.ThatCourt,aswehaveseen,inanunreportedopinion,reversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.WhiletheintermediateappellatecourtconcludedthatthetrialcourtappropriatelyappliedtherulespertainingtosummaryjudgmentandcorrectlydeterminedthattherespondentswerenotthirdpartybeneficiariestothecontractbetweenMagneticsandWS&B,itheldthatthereweresufficientfactsallegedbytherespondentstogenerateagenuinedisputeofmaterialfact,namely,whether,underMarylandtortlaw,WS&Bowedtherespondentsadutyofcare.   II.      ThepetitionerarguesthatthejudgmentoftheCourtofSpecialAppealsshouldbereversedandthatoftheCircuitCourtaffirmed.Itsubmitsthat,whiletheintermediateappellatecourtcorrectlyheldthatprivityoritsequivalentmustbeproventoestablishanaccountingmalpracticeclaim,iterredinaccepting,asthelegalequivalentofprivity,anaccountantsknowledgeofathirdpartysrelianceonthataccountantsworkproduct.Accordingtothepetitioner,knowingthattheplaintiffisrelyingontheaccountantsworkproductisrelevantonlytoestablish +&' thattheharmthattheplaintiffsufferedwasforeseeableafactorwhichisrelevantonlywhereforeseeabilityisthetestofliabilityand,becausethatisnotthetestinMaryland,whichrequiresanintimatenexusbetweentheparties,itissimplynotrelevant.Asthepetitionerseesit,therelationshipthatfallsshortofprivity,butisitsequivalent,canbeanalogizedto,andiscoextensivewith,thethirdpartybeneficiarydoctrine.  Notingthatthreestandardsofthirdpartyliabilityhaveevolvedwithrespecttoaccountantmalpractice,i.e.,whatitcharacterizesasthemajorityview,_   3      _Ԁthe  privitystandard,firstarticulatedinUltramaresCorporationv.Touche,255N.Y.  170,174N.E.441(1931);themoreliberalforeseeabilitystandard,seeRestatement(Second)ofTorts522;_   4      _Ԁandthe reasonablyforeseeablestandard  adoptedbythreeStates,_;    5      _Ԁthepetitionercontendsthat,infindingtheequivalentof  privityinthiscase,contrarytothisCourtsembraceoftheprivitystandard,theCourtofSpecialAppealshasadoptedthe_foreseeability_Ԁstandard.Thisisso,itsays,becausetheprivitystandardwouldallowathirdparty,notinprivity,torecoverforeconomicharminonlytwoinstances:iftheaccountantengagedinfraudandifthethirdpartywastheknownandintendedbeneficiaryoftheaccountantscontractualundertaking.ThepetitionerreliesonJacquesv.First   _Natl_ԀBank,307Md.527,53435,515A.2d756,75960(1986)and_Flaherty_Ԁv.  Weinberg,303Md.116,13031,492A.2d618,625(1985).Astothelattercase,  inwhichweheldthat,inthecontextofanattorneymalpracticecase,thescopeofdutyinnegligenceactionsmaybeanalogizedtothethirdpartybeneficiaryconcept,itassertsthatthereisnologicalbasistodistinguishbetweenlegalandaccountingmalpracticecases.  Thepetitioneralsoreliesonitscontractwith_Magnetics_,pointingoutthatit  5*  5  5  isaneconomictransactionwhichestablishesandlimitstheliabilityoftheattendantparties.Recognizingthelogic,inthecontextofphysicalharm,ofallowingathirdpartytoavoidcontractuallimitations,itarguesthat,inthecontextofaneconomicharm,thereisnosuchlogicalbasis.Inthatsituation,inadditiontoaffordingthethirdpartygreaterrightsthanapartytothecontract,thepetitionermaintains,expandingthirdpartyrightsbeyondthoseofathirdpartybeneficiaryfailstotakeintoaccounttheabilityofathirdpartytoavoidtheinjury.Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerasserts,the_Katzses_Ԁcouldhaveprotectedthemselvesbyretaininganindependentaccountant.>  III.    InMaryland,inordertoestablishacauseofactionfornegligence,aplaintiffmustprove:adutyowedtotheplaintiffortoaclassofwhichtheplaintiffisapart;abreachofthatduty;acausalrelationshipbetweenthebreachandtheharm;anddamagessuffered.SeeJacquesv.First_Natl_ԀBank,307Md.527,531,  515A.2d756,758(1986);Cramerv.HousingOpportunities_Commn_,304Md.   705,712,501A.2d35,39(1985);Scottv.Watson,278Md.160,165,359A.2d " 548,552(1976);_Peroti_Ԁv.Williams,258Md.663,669,267A.2d114,118(1970). $  Absentadutyofcare,therecanbenoliabilityinnegligence.SeeWest_Va_. &"" Centralv.Fuller,96Md.652,666,54A.669,67172(1903).There,id.at666, ($$ 54A.at671672,westated: +'' 8  [_T]here_Ԁcanbenonegligencewherethereisnodutythatisdue;fornegligenceisthebreachofsomedutythatonepersonowestoanother....Asthedutyowedvarieswithcircumstancesandwiththerelationtoeachotheroftheindividualsconcerned,sotheallegednegligencevaries,andtheactcomplainedofneveramountstonegligenceinlaworfact,iftherehasbeennobreachofduty.  SeealsoJonesv.HyattIns.Agency,Inc.,356Md.639,658,741A.2d1099,1109   (1999);Jacques,supra,307Md.at532,515A.2dat758;_Ashburn_Ԁv.Anne   _Arundel_ԀCounty,306Md.617,627,510A.2d1078,1083(1986);ReadDrug&   Chem.Co.of_Balto_.Cityv._Colwill_ԀConstr.Co.,250Md.406,412,243A.2d548,   553(1968);Leonardv.Lee,191Md.426,431,62A.2d259,261(1948);  PennsylvaniaRailroadCo.v.State,188Md.646,655,53A.2d562,566(1947);  _Inmi_Ԅ_Etti_Ԁv._Aluisi_,63Md.App.293,310,492A.2d917,925(1985).    Negligentmisrepresentationisonevarietyofanegligenceaction.Sheetsv.  BrethrenMut.Ins.Co.,342Md.634,646,679A.2d540,546(1996)(opiningthat,   [_n]egligent_Ԁmisrepresentationisaformofnegligence)#dD#Dd.Inrecognizingnegligent  misrepresentationasaseparatetortactionfromdeceitandallowingrecoveryforitsviolation,thisCourtinVirginiaDareStoresv.Schuman,175Md.287,292,1 ! A.2d897,899(1938),describedthetortasfollows:U[ X XQ:4#z&),4 <DL!X!Q 332 [_T]he_Ԁactionliesfornegligentwords,recoverybeingpermittedwhereonereliesonstatementsofanother,negligentlyvolunteeringanerroneousopinion,intendingthatitbeactedupon,andknowingthatlossorinjuryarelikelytofollowifitisactedupon. X XE+ 4 <DL!4#z-,XE 33Seealso_Weisman_Ԁv.Connors,312Md.428,443,540A.2d783,790(1988).This +f&& definitionoftheelementsdoesnotexplicitlyrecognizedutyasarequiredelement.Nevertheless,theVirginiaDarecourtstatedthatthedefendantowedtheplaintiff,  inthatcase,someduty._    6      _ԀSee175Md.at291,1A.2dat899.Ourmorerecent  renditionsoftheelementsofnegligentmisrepresentationcontainthedutyelement,explicitlyascribingitsinclusiontoVirginiaDare.InMartensChevrolet,Inc.v.   _Seney_,292Md.328,23637,439A.2d534,539(1982),thisCourtstated:   ` X XN:4#z&),4 <DL!XN 332 Theprincipalelementsofthetortofnegligentmisrepresentation,asformulatedinVirginiaDare...andsubsequentcasesdecidedbythis   Court,maybeoutlinedasfollows: X XcI jnpssuvΤ),4 <DL!4#z-,Xc(1)thedefendant,owingadutyofcaretotheplaintiff,negligentlyassertsafalsestatement;(2)thedefendantintendsthathisstatementwillbeacteduponbytheplaintiff;(3)thedefendanthasknowledgethattheplaintiffwill I probablyrelyonthestatement,which,iferroneous,willcauselossorinjury;(4)theplaintiff,justifiably,takesactioninrelianceonthestatement;and(5)theplaintiffsuffersdamageproximatelycausedbythedefendantsnegligence. 33  W+ 4 <DL! jnpssuvΤ),XWSeealsoGrossv.SussexInc.,332Md.247,259,630A.2d1156,1162(1993); I  _Weisman_Ԁv.Connors,312Md.428,444,540A.2d783,791(1988);Vancev. I  Vance,286Md.490,496,408A.2d728,731(1979);St.PaulatChaseCorp.v. I  Mfr.LifeIns.Co.,262Md.192,216,278A.2d12,2526(1971);Chesapeake I  Homes,Inc.v._McGrath_,etux.,249Md.480,48889,240A.2d245,24950 I (1968);_Brack_Ԁv.Evans,230Md.548,55253,187A.2d880,88283(1963);Piper I v.Jenkins,207Md.308,313,113A.2d919,921(1955);Holtv._Kolker_,189Md. I 636,639,57A.2d287,288(1948).  ThisCourtextensivelyconsideredthedutyelementofnegligenceinJacques.Seeid.at53237,515A.2dat759761.Inthatcase,theissuewas I whetherabankthathadagreedtoprocessaloanapplicationoweditscustomeradutyofcareintheprocessingofthatapplication.Duty, anobligationtowhichthelawwillgiveeffectandrecognitiontoconformtoaparticularstandardofconducttowardanother,id.at532,515A.2dat758,citingJ.Dooley,Modern I&!! TortLaw,3.03at1819(1982,1985Cum.Supp.),wesaid, hasbeendefinedas I(## theexpressionofthesumtotalofthoseconsiderationsofpolicywhichleadthelaw I*%% tosaythattheplaintiffisentitledtoprotection.Id.at533,515A.2dat759,  quoting_Prosser_Ԁand_Keeton_ԀonTheLawofTorts,53at357(1984).TheCourt  alsoacknowledgedtwomajorconsiderationsaffectingduty:thenatureoftheharmlikelytoresultfromafailuretoexerciseduecare,andtherelationshipthatexistsbetweentheparties.Seeid.at534,515A.2dat759.Withregardtothe   connectionbetweentheharmandtherelationshipbetweentheparties,weobservedn:)o X XN:4#z&),4 <DL!XN %  Wherethefailuretoexerciseduecarecreatesariskofeconomiclossonly,courtshavegenerallyrequiredanintimatenexusbetweenthepartiesasaconditiontotheimpositionoftortliability.Thisintimatenexusissatisfiedbycontractualprivityoritsequivalent.Bycontrast,wheretheriskcreatedisoneofpersonalinjury,nosuchdirectrelationshipneedbeshown,andtheprincipaldeterminantofdutybecomes_foreseeability_. % X XE+ 4 <DL!4#z-,XE307Md.at53435,515A.2dat75960.  Toassistitindeterminingwhethertherelationshipbetweenthebankandthe_Jacqueses_Ԁmettheintimatenexustestand,thus,whetherthebankowedthe_Jacqueses_Ԁadutyofcare,theCourtreviewed,andthenreliedupon,_Ultramares_   Corporationv.Touche,255N.Y.170,174_N.E._Ԁ441(1931)and_Glanzer_Ԁv. " Shepard,233N.Y.236,135_N.E._Ԁ275(1922).In_Glanzer_,theissuewaswhethera $  publicweigherofbeans,engagedandpaidonlybytheseller,wasliabletothebuyerofthebeansfornegligenceintheweighing.TheCourtofAppealsofNewYorkheldthattheweigherwasliable.TheJacquesCourtexplainedtherationale *&& ofthedecisionasnvfollows:ev X XE144 <DLL!XE [_T]he_Ԁbuyer,althoughhavingnocontractwiththeweigher,wastheknownandintendedbeneficiaryofthecontractbetweenthesellerandtheweigher,andthereforeabeneficiaryofthedutyowedbytheweigher.Thecourtfurtherconcludedthatasapublicweigherholdingitselfoutasskilledandcarefulinitscalling,thedefendantsassumptionofthetaskofweighingwastheassumptionofadutytoweighcarefullyforthebenefitofallwhoseconductwastobegovernedthereby....[_g]iven_Ԁthenatureofthecontractandtherelationbetweentheparties,thedutywasoneimposedbylawaswellasassumedbycontract. X XE+ 4 <DL!4XLXEId.at53536,515A.2dat760,quoting_Glanzer_,233N.Y.at239,135_N.E._Ԁat276.     _Ultramares_involvedthenegligenceofpublicaccountantsinthepreparation  andcertificationofabalancesheetforacorporation.Id.at17374,174_N.E._Ԁat  442.Theaccountantsfurnishedthirtytwocopiesofthebalancesheettotheirclient,who,asexpected,displayedandpassedthemalongtootherbusinesses,including,amongothers,theplaintiff.Id.at174,174_N.E._Ԁat442.#dDHZ#DdԀTheaccountant  wasaware,inotherwords,thatthecertifiedbalancesheetwouldlikelybeusedbytheclienttosecurefinancing.Relyingonthemisinformationcontainedinthebalancesheet,theplaintiffmadeseveralfinancialadvancestotheaccountantsclient.Whentheclientfailedtopayitsobligations,theplaintiffsuedtheaccountingfirm.Whileallowingrecoveryonthefraudclaim,id.at188,174_N.E._ %!! at448,#dDR}#DdԀthecourtheldthattheaccountantswerenotliableinnegligencetoathird '## partywhomadeloanstothecorporationinrelianceuponthebalancesheet.Id.at )%% 193,174_N.E._Ԁat450.#dD#DdԀWeexplainedthisdecision,inJacques: +'' Ї  X XN:4#z&),4 <DL!XN   Whilenotingthattheaccountantsweregenerallyonnoticethatthebalancesheetwaslikelytoberelieduponbyothers,thecourtdistinguishedthiscasefrom_Glanzer_onthebasisthattherewasno  contractualrelation,orevenoneapproachingit,attherootofanydutythatwasowingfromthedefendants...totheindeterminateclassofpersonswho...mightdealwiththe[corporation]inrelianceontheaudit._Ultramares_,supra,at446.Intheabsenceofthe   intimatenexusfoundin_Glanzer_,the_Ultramares_courtconcludedthat   theaccountantsmightbeliabletothefactorfordeceit,butnotfornegligencealone.   X XE+ 4 <DL!4#z-,XEJacquesat536,515A.2dat760.     TheJacquesCourtconcluded:    X XN:4#z&),4 <DL!XN %  Wediscernfromourreviewofthedevelopmentofthelawoftortdutythataninversecorrelationexistsbetweenthenatureoftheriskononehand,andtherelationshipofthepartiesontheother.Asthemagnitudeoftheriskincreases,therequirementofprivityisrelaxedthusjustifyingtheimpositionofadutyinfavorofalargeclassofpersonswheretheriskisofdeathorpersonalinjury.Conversely,asthemagnitudeoftheriskdecreases,acloserrelationshipbetweenthepartiesmustbeshowntosupportatortduty.Therefore,iftheriskcreatedbynegligentconductisnogreaterthanoneofeconomicloss,generallynotortdutywillbefoundabsentashowingofprivityoritsequivalent. % X XE+ 4 <DL!4#z-,XEId.at537,515A.2dat761.    Wefirstaddressedwhetherapartycouldrecoverforeconomiclossonlyinanegligentmisrepresentationaction,in_Brack_Ԁv.Evans,230Md.548,187A.2d880 # (1963).Althoughtherewasnoextensivediscussionofthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenthepartiesrequiredtogiverisetoadutyofcare,implicitinthedecisionwasthatthefactsallegedweresufficientinthatregard.Inthatcase,theplaintiff,havingreadtheannouncementinthepapers,calledthedefendantand +'' spoketooneofitsemployeesinordertoplaceanorderforasmanyofthesharesofUpjohnat$45.00orlesspershare,thepricepershareafterthestocksplitthecompanyintended,as$15,000wouldbuy.Havingbeenadvisedthatitwouldbeawasteoftimetotaketheorderbecausethestockwouldbeoversubscribed,theplaintiffacceptedthedefendantsrecommendationthathepurchase10sharesoftheoldUpjohncommonstock,thensellingat$1,525.00asharebeforethesplit.Realizingthatthepurchaseoftheoldstockwouldresultinhispayingmoreforthestock,whilereceivingfewershares,theplaintiffattemptedtocancelthepurchaseafewminutesaftertheorderwasplaced.Inadditiontobeingtoldthatitwastoolate,thedefendantsinformedhimthathe:Џ X X [_W]ould_Ԁgetdividends,rightsandprivilegesfromtheUpjohnCo.onlybypurchasingtheoldstock,whichhewouldnotgetifheboughtthenewstockandthattheeffectofthedividends,rightsandprivilegesthatthePlaintiffwouldgetalongwiththepurchaseoftheoldstockwouldmakeupthedifferenceofthe89sharesaforesaid,amountingtoapproximatelyFourThousandDollars($4,000.00)andthatthePlaintiffwouldbejustaswelloffbypurchasingtheoldstock.A X3 X%Id.at552,187A.2dat882. !   Thereafter,thestocksplitandthenewstocksoldfor$45.00ashare.Theplaintiffsubsequentlyreceived250sharesofthenewstock,nottheoldstock,andheneverreceivedanydividendsorrightsorprivilegesapplicabletotheoldstock.TheCourt,insettingouttheallegations,wascarefultonotethattheplaintiffalleged that[thedefendants]heldthemselvesoutasconsultantsandexpertsinthe +'' fieldofsecurities,andthathereliedentirelyupon[their]recommendationandcounsel...andthatthelatterknewofthisreliance....Id.at551,187A.2dat  882.  WenextaddressedtheissueinMartensChevrolet,Inc.v._Seney_,292Md.   328,439A.2d534(1982).Itaroseinthecontextofthesaleofanautomobiledealership.There,theownerofanautomobiledealership,whichtheplaintiffswereinnegotiationstopurchaseandwhichtheplaintiffsintendedtocontinueasanongoingbusiness,indicated,inresponsetotheplaintiffsinquiriesastotheprofitabilityofthedealership,thatitwas mildlyprofitable,offeringinsupportahandwrittentrendsheetandstatingthattheauditedstatementsofthedealershipsoperationswerenotcompleteoravailable.Id.at332,439A.2dat536.When,  afterthepurchase,theplaintiffslearnedthatthedealershipwasoperatedataloss,asreflectedinauditedstatementspreparedpriortothenegotiationsandsale,theplaintiffbroughtseparatecountsofbreachofcontract,deceitandnegligentmisrepresentationagainsttheownerofthedealership.HavingreviewedthefactsallegedbytheplaintiffsandtracedthedevelopmentofthetortofnegligentmisrepresentationfromitsfirstappearanceinVirginiaDare,wereaffirmedits $  existenceasaseparatetort.Martens,at336,439A.2dat538.Onceagain,the &"" Courtdidnotengageinalengthydiscussionofduty;infact,itessentiallyassumedthatitexisted. *&&   InFlahertyv.Weinberg,303Md.116,492A.2d618(1985),wefocused  moreonthedutyelement,addressingitinthecontextofanattorneymalpracticeaction.There,thepurchasersofrealpropertybroughtanactionfor,interalia,  negligentmisrepresentationagainstthesettlementattorneywhohadbeenretainedby,andrepresentedonly,theseller.Seeid.at135,492A.2dat627.We   concludedr:L X XN:4#z&),4 <DL!XN  [_W]e_ԀthinkitclearthatMaryland,asageneralrule,adherestothestrictprivityruleinattorneymalpracticecases.Thesoleexceptionthatwehaverecognizedtothisruleisthethirdpartybeneficiarytheory.[_    7      _]Althoughthisexceptionispeculiarlyapplicableto  contractactions...itsscopehasabroaderrange.Inourview,thescopeofdutyconceptinnegligenceactionsmaybeanalogizedtothethirdpartybeneficiaryconceptinthecontextofattorneymalpracticecases.Thus,toestablishadutyowedbytheattorneytothe_nonclient_thelattermustallegeandprovethattheintentoftheclienttobenefitthe_nonclient_Ԁwasadirectpurposeofthetransactionorrelationship.Inthisregard,thetestforthirdpartyrecoveryiswhethertheintenttobenefitactuallyexisted,notwhethertherecouldhavebeenanintenttobenefitthethirdparty. ӹ X XH.4 <DL!4#z-,XHId.at13031,492A.2dat625(internalcitationomitted).Withrespecttothethird  partybeneficiaryexception,whichweindicatedhadanarrowscope,theCourtcommented:£ X XT:4#z&),4 <DL!XXT  Properlyapplied,thisexceptionwillnotexposetheattorneytoendlesslitigationbroughtbythosewhomightconceivablyderivesomeindirectbenefitfromthecontractualperformanceofthe &"" attorneyandhisclient.Moreover,thisexceptionshouldhavelimitedapplicationinadversarialproceedingsbecauseourCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrequiresthatalawyerrepresenthisclientzealouslywithintheboundsofthelaw(Canon7)andthatthelawyerordinarilynotrepresentoractforconflictinginterestsinatransaction(Canon5;_EC_Ԁ51,514,515,519,522;DR5105).Seealso   _Clagett_Ԁv._Dacy_,[47Md.App.23,30,420A.2d1285,1290(1980)]   (discussingprofessionalresponsibilityofattorneysincontextofattorneyliabilitytothirdpersons);11:25Md.Reg.354(containingReportoftheSelectCommitteeoftheCourtofAppealsofMarylandtoStudytheABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct).  X XE+ 4 <DL!4#z-,XEId.at13132,492A.2dat626.The_Flaherty_rationalethusseemstohavelimited   applicabilitybeyondthelegalservices,i.e.,attorneymalpractice,context._    8      _  4* 4  4    #b # #      Thenextyear,wedecidedanothercontroversyinvolvingthedutyowedtoanoncontractingparty.Inthatcase,CouncilofCoOwnersv.WhitingTurner,308   Md.18,23,517A.2d336,339(1986),amongthenegligentactsallegedbytheplaintiffswerenegligentconstructionbythegeneralcontractorandthedeveloper;negligentinspectionbythedeveloperandsupervisingarchitects,negligentsupervision,andacceptanceoftheworkbythedesignandsupervisingarchitects;negligentinspectionbyotherarchitectsandnegligentobtainingofanoccupancypermitbythedeveloper.Theplaintiffsalsochargedthatarchitectsemployedtoinspectthebuildingandcertifycompliance,misrepresented thatthebuildingwasconstructedpursuanttotheapprovedbuildingpermitinaccordancewiththeplansandspecificationssubmittedwiththeoriginalpermitapplicationandthatthebuildingwasreadyforoccupancy.Id.at23,517A.2dat339.Additionally,they   allegedthat,inadvertisingandsellingtheunits,thedevelopernegligently " misrepresented thebuildingssuitabilityforoccupancy.Id.  E14 <DLL!XE      Acknowledgingthegeneralruleofliabilitywheretheresultofnegligenceisthecreationofadangerouscondition,theCourtfollowedthemoderntrend,noting:    E+ 4 <DL!XLXE P  8 A [_T]hat_Ԁprivityisnotanabsoluteprerequisitetotheexistenceofatortduty.Thedutyofthearchitectsandthebuildersinthiscase,touseduecareinthedesign,inspection,andconstructionofthiscondominiumextendedtothosepersons_foreseeably_Ԁsubjectedtotheriskofpersonalinjurycreated,ashere,byalatentandunreasonablydangerousconditionresultingfromtheirnegligence. A LA L   Id.at32,517A.2dat34344.Thus,weheldthatbuildersandarchitects  owedadutytopurchasersofcondominiumunits,who,thoughsufferingonlyeconomicdamages,were,asaresultofthepurchase,_foreseeably_Ԁsubjectedtotheriskofpersonalinjurybecauseofthebuildersorarchitectsnegligence,andtherefore: X X  [_T]he_Ԁdutyofbuildersandarchitectstouseduecareinthedesign,inspection,andconstructionofabuildingextendstothosepersons_foreseeably_Ԁsubjectedtotheriskofpersonalinjurybecauseofalatentandunreasonablydangerousconditionresultingfromthatnegligence.Additionally,weholdthatwherethedangerousconditionisdiscoveredbeforeitresultsininjury,anactioninnegligencewillliefortherecoveryofthereasonablecostofcorrectingthecondition. X X?+ 4 <DL!X?  Id.at21,517A.2dat338.Withrespecttothenegligentmisrepresentation %!! counts,wesaid: X X   ThetortofnegligentmisrepresentationhasbeenrecognizedinthisState._Flaherty_Ԁv.Weinberg,303Md.116,135,492A.2d618 *&& (1985);MartensChevroletv._Seney_,292Md.328,439A.2d534 +'' (1982).Becausetheallegationspertainingtothisclaimareforthemostpartstatedin_conclusory_Ԁfashion,wehavenowayofknowingpreciselywhatwassaidorwrittenthatAppellantsbelieveconstituteactionablemisrepresentations.Iftheevidencedisclosesexpressrepresentationsmadeundercircumstancesthatsatisfytheelementsofthiscauseofactionassetforthin_Flaherty_,supra,303Md.at135,   492A.2d618,thefactthatAppellantshavesufferedonlyeconomiclosswillnotbeabar.However,ifAppellantsarecontendingthatthewarrantiesimpliedbylawconstituterepresentationsthatwillsupportacauseofactionifnegligentlymade,theclaimmustfail.Althoughnonverbalconductmayundercertaincircumstancesconstitutearepresentation,wearenotpersuadedthataninvoluntarywarrantyexistingsolelybyoperationoflawmayconstitutearepresentationthatwillsupportacauseofactionfornegligentmisrepresentation. X X   Id.at4142,517A.2dat348.       A AnothercontextinwhichthisCourthasdiscussedthenatureoftherelationshiprequiredtoestablishadutyofcare,arecasesinwhicheconomicdamagesonlywereincurredinvolvingprecontractualemploymentnegotiations.Thatissuewaspresentedin_Weisman_Ԁv.Connors,312Md.428,540A.2d783   (1987).Thequestioninthatcasewaswhetheraprospectiveemployerowedaprospectiveemployeeadutyofcareforstatementsmadeinanarmslengthcommercialtransactionwhentherewasnoriskofphysicalinjury.Id.at441,540 "  A.2dat789.ThisCourt,indefiningtherequiredrelationshipbetweenthepartiesinthatcase,reliedontheJacquesanalysisoftheintimatenexusrequirementand & !! thetwomajorconsiderationsinformingitnatureoftheharmandtherelationshipbetweentheparties,andMartens.AstoMartens,wethoughtitsignificantforthe * %% propositionthat theremaybetherequisitespecialrelationshiporintimatenexus , '' inanarmslengthcommercialtransactioninvolvingpecuniarylossonly._Weisman_,312Md.at448,540A.2dat792.     A Inaddition,theCourtreliedonInternationalProductsCo.v.ErieR.  Co.,244N.Y.331,155_N.E._Ԁ662(1927),whichwasdecidedbytheNewYork   CourtofAppealsbetweenitsdecisionsin_Glanzer_and_Ultramares_.There,   knowingthattheinquirywasmadeforinsurancepurposes,abaileeofgoodsnegligentlyinformedhisbailorwherethegoodswerestoredandthecourtheldhimliableinnegligentmisrepresentationfortheresultingloss.Onthequestionofduty,theNewYorkcourtstated: X X   Liability[fornegligentmisrepresentation]arisesonlywherethereisaduty,ifonespeaksatall,togivethecorrectinformation.Andthatinvolvesmanyconsiderations.Theremustbeknowledge,oritsequivalent,thattheinformationisdesiredforaseriouspurpose;thathetowhomitisgivenintendstorelyandactuponit;that,iffalseorerroneous,hewillbecauseofitbeinjuredinpersonorproperty.Finally,therelationshipoftheparties,arisingoutofcontractorotherwise,mustbesuchthatinmoralsandgoodconsciencetheonehastherighttorelyupontheotherforinformation,andtheothergivingtheinformationowesadutytogiveitwithcare.Aninquirymadeofastrangerisonething;ofapersonwithwhomtheinquirerhasentered,orisabouttoenter,intoacontractconcerningthegoodswhichare,oraretobe,itssubject,isanother. $  X X  Id.at338,155_N.E._Ԁat664(internalcitationomitted). %     A Ouranalysisofthedutyissuein_Weisman_isquiteinstructive.The ' "" plaintiffhadastable,highleveljobbeforeenteringintocontractnegotiationswiththedefendantwithregardtoleavingthatemploymentforotheremploymentwith + && thedefendant.Inhiscomplaint,theplaintiffallegedthatthedefendantmadeanumberofrepresentationsleadingtheplaintifftobelieve,amongotherthings,thatifheweretoleavehispresentemploymentandjointhecompanyforwhichhewasbeingrecruited,hewouldbejoiningastablecompanyonthevergeofasignificantlateralexpansionofitsautomotivedivision,thathewouldhaveanequityparticipationinthisexpansionandthevalueofwhichwouldmorethanoffsetthebenefitshewouldlosebyleavinghispresentemployment.Seeid.at43233,540   A.2dat785.Withrespecttothesignificanceofthenegotiationsandtherepresentations,theCourtopined: X X   ThatConnorshadagreatstakeinreceivingaccurateinformationfrom_Weisman_Ԁisreadilyapparent;conversely,_Weisman_ԀhadtorealizethatnegligenceonhispartinconveyingsuchinformationcouldresultinconsiderableeconomicharmtoConnors.Ofcourse,itwas_Weisman_sobjectivetosellConnors,priortoactualcontractnegotiations,onthewisdomofleavinghiscareeremploymentatFordandjoining_FWC_.Inthisregard,theface-to-faceprecontractualdiscussionsbetween_Weisman_ԀandConnorsmorecloselyresembletheintimacyofthe_Glanzer_partiesthantheremotenessof  the_Ultramares_relationship.Asin_Glanzer_,_Weisman_Ԁcould  reasonablyforeseetheprobableconsequencesofnegligenceinhisnegotiationswithConnors.Andtherewasnoquestionasin_Ultramares_,ofliabilityinanindeterminateamountforan " indeterminatetimetoanindeterminateclass. X X?+ 4 <DL!X? X X  Asweseeit,nothinginJacquesmandatestheconclusion,asa & !! matteroflaw,thatnospecialrelationshiporintimatenexusexistedduringtheprecontractualnegotiationsbetween_Weisman_ԀandConnorswhichledtotheexecutionoftheemploymentcontract.UndertakingtoinduceConnorstoacceptemploymentwith_FWC_ԀinthecircumstancesofthiscasemaybelikenedtothesellersrepresentationsinMartens,priortoenteringintoacontractofsale, , '' thatthedistributorshipwouldbeprofitable,asevidencedbythenegligentlypreparedfinancialtrendsheet.WecannotdistinguishMartensonthegroundsuggestedby_Weisman_,namely,thatthe  specialrelationshipfoundtoexistbetweenthepartiesinthatcasewasbecausetheselleraffirmativelyassumedtheroleofaccountantinsupplyingfinancialinformationtothebuyer.ThatsuchinformationismostoftenprovidedbyaccountantsdoesnotmeanthatthesellerinMartensassumedtheroleofaccountant.Indeed,theexistenceofa   specialrelationshipbetweenthepartiesnegotiatingthetypeofhigh-level,long-termemploymentcontractinvolvedhere--particularlywherethepartieswillbeworkingcloselyinsucceedingyears--ismoreplausiblethanbetweenpartiessellingandbuyinganautomobiledistributorship,whomayneverseeeachotheragain. X X  Id.at449450,540A.2dat793(internalcitationsomitted).      A InVillageofCrossKeys,Inc.v.U.S.GypsumCo.,315Md.741,   556A.2d1126(1989),thisCourtonceagainwasfacedwiththequestionoftheextentofdutyamanufacturerowedtoapartywithwhomithadnocontractualrelationship.Inthatcase,thedeveloperandthearchitectofabuildingintheVillageofCrossKeysfiledanactionagainstU.S.Gypsumfor,amongothercausesofaction,negligentmisrepresentation.TheyallegedthattheyrelieduponU.S.Gypsumsdesignfortheconstructionoftheexteriorwalls,andthatthedesignandcertainrepresentationsconcerningitwerefaulty.Seeid.at744,556A.2dat1127. $  ThemisrepresentationsonwhichthedeveloperandarchitectreliedwerecontainedinapublicationdevelopedbyU.S.Gypsum,settingspecificationsforthe _USG_BrickVeneerCurtainWallSystem,includingwindloadlimitingtables.Id.at * %% 747,556A.2dat1129.AmongthedefensesU.S.Gypsumofferedwasthatit , '' owednodutytoeitherthedeveloperorthearchitect.Seeid.at74950,556A.2d  at1130.Inthatregard,itnotedthatithadnocontractinconnectionwiththeHarperHouseprojectandthatithadnotdesignedaproprietaryexteriorwallsystem.Seeid.at744,556A.2dat1127.      A Althoughacknowledgingthat [thedevelopersandarchitects]claimthatatortdutymustbeimposedupononewhohaserredgeneratesthespecterofliabilityinanindeterminateamountforanindeterminatetimetoanindeterminateclass,aliabilitythatconcernedJustice_Cardozo_Ԁin_Ultramares_  Corporationv.Touche,andcontinuestoconcerncourtstoday,VillageofCross  Keysat74445,556A.2dat1127,theCourtdidnotdecidetheissue, leavingto  anotherdaythequestionofwhetheramanufacturermay,undercertaincircumstances,beresponsiblefornegligentpublicationofinformationinthismanner.Id.at759,556A.2dat1134.Itdid,however,express gravedoubts  concerningthevitalityof,id.at758,556A.2dat1134,U.S.Gypsumsargument  thatit cannotbeliableforitsgratuitouspublicationtopersonswithwhom_USG_hadnodealings,butwhowereonlyapartofthegeneraluniverseorvast,facelesscrowdofSweetsCatalogusers,[_    9      _]id.at757,556A.2dat1134,that $  thereisnointimatenexusbetweenitandthedeveloperandarchitect.Id.at758,  556A.2dat1134.Havingnoted,initsanalysisofthetortofnegligentmisrepresentation,thecloseinterrelationshipbetweentheconceptofdutyand justifiableorreasonablereliancebythepartiessufferingtheloss,id.at757,   556A.2dat1133,theCourtexplained: X X   Itistruethat_USG_Ԁdidnotdirectlysellthissystemoranycomponentpartsofittothedeveloperortothearchitect.Itdid,however,developasystemundercircumstancesfromwhichthetrieroffactcouldfindaspecificintentthatarchitectsandperhapsengineers,builders,ordeveloperswouldadoptit.Therecorddisclosesthatthe805andsimilarmanufacturerspublicationsreceivewidedistributioninthetradebyinclusioninSweetsCatalog.Additionally,the805wasdirectlyavailablefrom_USG_Ԁoranyofitssalesstaff.Although_USG_Ԁdidnotdesignthesystemforafeefromaparticularclient,orattempttosellitfordirectcompensation,itissafetosayitdidnotdevelopandpublishthesedetaileddrawings,specifications,andtechnicaldatatablesforsomealtruisticmotive.Asoneofarelativelyfewmajormanufacturersofthecomponentpartsofthesystem,itreasonablyexpectedthatacceptanceanduseofthesystemgenerallywouldtranslateintosignificantincreasedsalesofitsmerchandise.Itmayreasonablybesaid,then,thatthedevelopmentanddistributionofthe805wasforthepurposeofearningaprofit,albeitsomewhatindirectly,andthereforepublicationwaseffectedfor_USG_specuniaryinterest. X X X X  Althoughthegroupofpersonswhomaybeexpectedtorelyuponinformationofthiskindmaybelarge,theyareidentifiable,particularlyifthegroupislimitedtoarchitectsandstructuralengineers.Thattheirnamescannotbeknowninadvanceisofnoconsequence.Henleyv.PrinceGeorgesCounty,305Md.320, &"" 334-36,503A.2d1333(1986).Atrieroffactcouldfindthatthearchitectsandengineersaretheverypersonswhom_USG_Ԁintendedtoactontheinformationsupplied.Wethinkitclearthatinsomecircumstancesitisthepracticeoftheindustrythatarchitectsandengineersdependupontechnicalinformationsuppliedby +'' manufacturers.Wedoubtthattheindustrystandardrequiresthateacharchitectandengineerreinventthewheelforeachproject.Projectedliabilityforerrormaybegreatwhentechnicalinformationispublishedunderthesecircumstances,butapparentlythepotentialforprofitsmayalsobegreat,andadecisionofwhethertopublishinthisfashion,andhowmuchcaretouseinresearch,testing,conformation,proofreading,andthelikemaysimplybebusinessdecisions.     X X?+ 4 <DL!X?  Id.at75859,556A.2dat1134.      IV.     A Fromtheforegoing,therationaleunderlyingtherequirementofprivityoritsequivalentasaconditionofliabilityfornegligentconduct,includingnegligentmisrepresentations,resultingineconomicdamagesemerges:toavoid liabilityinanindeterminateamountforanindeterminatetimetoanindeterminateclass.Ultramares,255N.Y.at179,174_N.E._Ԁat444.Stateddifferently,the  reasonfortherequirementistolimitthedefendantsriskexposuretoanactuallyforeseeableextent,thuspermittingadefendanttocontroltherisktowhichthedefendantisexposed.ItwasthatconcernthatwasbeingaddressedbytheJacques  CourtwhenitjuxtaposedGlanzerandUltramaresandstresseddoublythatthe ! JacqueseswerenotstrangerstotheloantransactionandthattheBankpromisedtheJacquesestoprocesstheirloanapplicationandtolockinacertainrateofinterestforaperiodoftime.Jacques,at537,515A.2dat761._    10      _ԀConcerningthepromises, '## theCourtpointedoutthattheywereaninducementtothe_Jacqueses_ԀandprovidedtheBankwithabusinessadvantagewhenthe_Jacqueses_Ԁactedinconformancewiththem.Seeid.Thatsameconcernwasthereasonforthediscussion,in_Weisman_,  oftherelationshipbetweentheprecontractualjobapplicantandhisprospectiveemployeranddrovetheanalysisofwhy,inU.S.Gypsum,theCourtwasnot   convincedthat,underthecircumstancesthereextant,U.S.Gypsumowednodutytothedeveloperandarchitectsimplybecauseithadnodealingswiththem.     @ A.     A Wehavecontemplatedand,indeed,commented,albeitobliquelyandinadifferentcontext,onanaccountantsdutytoanoncontractingpartywithrespecttonegligentmisrepresentation.In_Weisman_,supra,wenoted,andrejected,  theargumentthatthespecialrelationshipfoundtoexistbetweenthepartiesinMartenswasbecausetheselleraffirmativelyassumedtheroleofaccountantin  supplyingfinancialinformationtothebuyer,pointingoutthatthefactthatsuchinformationismostoftenprovidedbyaccountantsdoesnotmeanthatthesellerinthatcaseassumedtheroleofaccountant.SeeWeisman,312Md.at444,540A.2d " at791.InJacques,weobserved,inconnectionwithourdiscussionof thenature $  ofthebusinessofthepartyuponwhomtheburdenissoughttobeimposed,307Md.at541,515A.2dat763,asafactorrelevanttothedeterminationofwhetherto ($$ !      recognizetheexistenceofatortduty,̀ X X  [_t]he_Ԁlawgenerallyrecognizesatortdutyofduecarearisingfromcontractualdealingswithprofessionalssuchasphysicians,attorneys,architects,andpublicaccountants.Additionally,wehaverecognizedthatinthoseoccupationsrequiringpeculiarskill,atortdutytoactwithreasonablecarewillbeimposedonthosewhoholdthemselvesoutaspossessingtherequisiteskill. X X  Id.,citingSt.PaulatChasev.Mfrs.LifeInsur.,262Md.192,219-20,278   A.2d12,cert.denied,404U.S.857,92S.Ct.104,30L.Ed.2d98(1971).We   havenotdirectlyaddressedtheissuethiscasepresents;itisamatteroffirstimpressionforthisCourt.    A Courtsthathavefacedtheissueofaccountantliabilitytoanoncontractingthirdpartyhaveutilizeddifferentapproaches.Asthepetitionerhaspointedout,thecourtshavedevelopedthreebasicapproachesfordeterminingthescopeofaccountantsliabilitytothirdpartieswhouseandrelyontheirauditreports. *   11        ؀SeeScottishHeritableTrustv.PeatMarwickMain&Co.,81F.3d606,  611(5thCir.1996);_Bily_Ԁv.ArthurYoung&Co.,3Cal.4th370,384,834P.2d   " e   745,752(1992).Seealso_Orlinski_,AnAccountantsLiabilitytoThirdParties: e _Bily_Ԁv.ArthurYoung&Co,43_DePaul_ԀL.Rev.859,87172(1994).Asignificant e numberfollowthe_Ultramares_formulation,underwhichathirdpartywillbe e deniedreliefforanauditorsnegligenceintheabsenceofarelationshipwiththeauditorthatconstitutesprivityorthatisequivalenttoprivity.See_Orlinski_,supra, e  43_DePaul_ԀL.Rev.#dDۀ#Ddat87172.Themajorityofjurisdictions,however,followthe e  Restatementapproach:liabilityisimposedonsuppliersofcommercialinformationtothirdpartieswhoareactuallyforeseenastheusersoftheinformationforaparticularpurpose.Id.Thethirdview,followedbyafewjurisdictions,allows e thirdpartiestorecoverforauditornegligencewhentheirrelianceontheauditreportwasreasonablyforeseeablebytheauditor.SeeRosenbloom,Inc.v.Adler, e 93N.J.324,461A.2d138(1983).   A Thefirstapproach,exemplifiedbyUltramares,requires,inorderto e beabletorecoveragainstanaccountantfornegligentmisrepresentation,thattheplaintiffandtheaccountantbeinprivityorhavearelationshipequivalentto,orapproaching,privity.SeeColonialBankv.Ridley&Schweigert,551So.2d390, e" 394(Ala.1989);IdahoBank&TrustCo.v.FirstBancorp,115Idaho1082,1084, e$  772P.2d720,722(1989);Thayerv.Hicks,243Mont.138,144,793P.2d784, e&"" 788(1990);Citizens_Natl_ԀBankv.Kennedy&_Coe_,232Neb.477,480,441 e($$ N.W.2d180(1989). e*&& +@# +  +     A ElucidatingUltramares,theCourtofAppealsofNewYorkreiterated e theprivityequivalentornearprivityrequirementinCreditAllianceCorp.v.Arthur e Anderson&Co.,65N.Y.2d536,551,483N.E.2d110,118(1985),intheprocess, e clarifying _-   12      _Ԁthetestofelementsaplaintiffmustestablish:(1)theaccountantsmust e  havebeenawarethatthefinancialreportsweretobeusedforaparticularpurposeorpurposes;(2)inthefurtheranceofwhichaknownpartyorpartieswasintendedtorely;and(3)theremusthavebeensomeconductonthepartoftheaccountantslinkingtothatpartyorparties,whichevincestheaccountantsunderstandingofthatpartyorpartiesreliance.Id. e    A TwoappealswereinvolvedinCreditAlliance,inbothofwhichthe e plaintiffloanedmoneytotheaccountantsclient,inrelianceonauditedfinancialstatements.There,noadequateallegationwaspresentofaparticularpurposeforthepreparationoftheauditreportsoranyconductonthepartoftheaccountantsindicatingtheirrelationtotheplaintifforindicatingtheirknowledgeofthe e plaintiffsrelianceonthereports.Id.at553,483N.E.2dat#dDV #DdԀ119.Ontheother e hand,initscomplaintinEuropeanAm.Bank&TrustCo.v._Strauhs_Ԁ&Kaye,477 e N.Y.S.2d146,102A.D.2d776(1984),theplaintiffcontendedthattheauditorknewthattheplaintiffwaslendingmoneytotheclientandthattheauditorhadcommunicateddirectlywiththeplaintiffinregardtothefinancialstatements.See e  CreditAllianceat554,483N.E.2dat#dDB#DdԀ120. e   XPThepolicyobjectiveunderlyingthe_Ultramares_approachisthesamepolicy e  reflectedinourcasesinvolvingnegligenceclaimsbroughtbythirdpartiesnotincontractualprivitywiththedefendant,limitingtheunpredictableandunlimitednatureofeconomicdamages._   13      _ԀSee_Ultramares_,255N.Y.at179,174_N.E._Ԁat444 e (explainingtheholding,Judge_Cardozo_Ԁwrotethatifthirdpartieswereallowedtorecoverfromanaccountantfornegligence, athoughtlesssliporblunder...[would]exposeaccountantstoliabilityinanindeterminateamountforanindeterminatetimetoanindeterminateclass).Atthesametime,thisapproachseekstorecognizeandgiveeffecttothecurrentcommercialrealityinwhichthecertifiedpublicaccountantplaysamajorroleinassuringthereliabilityoffinancialstatements. XE144 <DL!XE  ThesecondapproachistheRestatementApproach.SeeRestatement e (Second)ofTorts,552,adoptedin1977.Thatapproachextendsliabilitytomembersofalimitedclassofthirdpartiesundercircumstancesprescribedbythat e 552,whichdealswithinformationnegligentlysuppliedfortheguidanceofothers.Itprovides:8  (1)Onewho,inthecourseofhisbusiness,professionoremployment,orinanyothertransactioninwhichhehasapecuniaryinterest,suppliesfalseinformationfortheguidanceofothersintheirbusinesstransactions,issubjecttoliabilityforpecuniarylosscausedtothembytheirjustifiablerelianceupontheinformation,ifhefailstoexercisereasonablecareorcompetenceinobtainingorcommunicatingtheinformation.  8  W:4),,4 <DL!4XXW (2)ExceptasstatedinSubsection(3),theliabilitystatedinSubsection(1)islimitedtolosssuffered    `= ),,4 <DLL!4),,XX`(a)bythepersonoroneofalimitedgroupofpersonsforwhosebenefitandguidanceheintendstosupplytheinformationorknowsthattherecipientintendstosupplyit;and(b)throughrelianceuponitinatransactionthatheintendstheinformationtoinfluenceorknowsthattherecipientsointendsorinasubstantiallysimilartransaction.  Z14 <DL!! ),,XLLXZ  Forliabilitytoattachunder552,theplaintiffmustbeamemberofalimitedclasstowhomtheaccountantintendstosupplytheinformationortowhomtheaccountantknowstherecipientintendstosupplyit,whosufferslossthroughrelianceontheinformationforsubstantiallythesamepurposeasthebonafideclient.See_Orlinski_,supra,43_DePaul_ԀL.Rev.#dDn#Ddat878.Underthisapproach,not e# everyreasonablyforeseeableuserofthefinancialinformationsuppliedbytheaccountantmayrecoverforlossessustainedinreliance.Anaccountantwhoisretainedtoconductanauditandtofurnishanopinionfornoparticularpurposeordinarilyundertakesnodutytothirdpersons.SeeRestatement(Second)ofTorts e+'' 552_cmt_.h,illus.10(1977).Eventhoughaccountantsgenerallyknowthatthefinancialstatementsarecustomarilyusedinawidevarietyoffinancialtransactionsbycorporationsandotherbusinessesandthattheylikelywillberelieduponbylenders,investors,stockholders,creditorsandpurchasers,foradutyofcaretoexist,theaccountantmustbeinformedthatanidentifiedthirdpartyorclassofthirdpartieswillbeusingthefinancialstatements.See_Orlinski_,supra,43_DePaul_ԀL. e  Rev.#dD9(#Ddat87879.#dD,#DdԀThus,aplaintiffclaimingnegligentmisrepresentationmustbethe e  person,oramemberofalimitedgroupofpersons,forwhosebenefitandguidancethedefendanteitherintendedtosupplytheinformationorknewthattherecipientoftheinformationintendedtosupplyit.Seeid.at879.#dD,#DdԀConsequently,an e unidentifiedthirdpartymaybeabletorecover aslongasthatthirdpartywasamemberofanidentifiedclassofpersonswhosereliancetheaccountantcouldactuallyforesee.Id.Forexample,theaccountantmaybeheldliabletoathird e partylenderiftheaccountantisinformedbytheclientthattheauditreportwouldbeusedtoobtainaloan,evenifthespecificlenderremainsunidentifiedortheclientnamesonelenderandthenborrowsfromanother.SeeRestatement(Second) e" ofTorts552cmt.h,illus.67(1997).Adoptedbythemajorityofcourtswhichhavefacedtheissue,_%   14      _Ԁthisapproachhasbeendeterminedbysomeofthosecourts e&"" tobemostconsistentwiththepolicyfoundations,i.e.,restrictionofthepersonor e classofpersonsentitledtorelyonthemisrepresentationtothosetowhomorforwhomthemisrepresentationsweremade,underlyingthetortofnegligentmisrepresentation.See_Bily_,#dDu.#O  Dd3Cal.4that#dD3#K.` hp x (#X!#KO3ebu  DdԀ408,834P.2dat769;ScottishHeritable e  Trustv.PeatMarwickMain&Co.,81F.3d606,612(5thCir.1996). e   Thethirdapproachisthe _foreseeability_approach,underwhichaccountantsareliabletothirdpartiesinthesamewaythatanyother_tortfeasor_wouldbe.SeeHowardB.Wiener,CommonLawLiabilityoftheCertifiedPublic e  AccountantforNegligentMisrepresentation,20SanDiegoL.Rev.233(1983). e  Accordingly,anaccountantwhopreparesanauditreportisliabletoathirdpartyfornegligentmisrepresentationifitisreasonablyforeseeablethatsuchthirdpartymightobtain,andrelyon,theauditreport.SeeToucheToss&Co.v.Commercial e UnionIns.Co.,514So.2d.315,322(Miss.1987).Thisisanexpansiveviewof e accountantliabilityand,thus,ithasbeenadoptedinonlyafewstatesXsXD,DXXssee,e.g.,XsXD e DXXsCitizensStateBankv._Timm_,Schmidt&Co.,113Wis.2d376,385,335N.W.2d e 361,365(1983);ToucheRoss&Co.,514So.2dat318;H.Rosenblum,Inc.v. e Adler,93N.J.324,348,461A.2d138,151(1983);First_Natl_ԀBankv._Monco_ e Agency,Inc.,911F.2d1053,105859(5thCir.1990),someofwhichhave e retreatedfromit.See_Bily_,3Cal.4that392,409,834P.2dat757,769;_Petrillo_Ԁv. e  _Bachenberg_,139N.J.472,485,655A.2d1354,1360(1995)(notingthatNew e" Jerseyhasstatutorily_   15      _Ԁchangedits_foreseeability_Ԁruleforaccountantstoamore e$  restrictivetest).  ThepolicygoalsunderlyingthisapproachwereexplainedbyJusticeWeiner,asfollows:= X XN:4),,4 <DL!XN Accountantliabilitybasedonforeseeableinjurywouldservethedualfunctionsofcompensationforinjuryanddeterrenceofnegligentconduct.Moreover,itisajustandrationaljudicialpolicythatthesamecriteriagoverntheimpositionofnegligentliability,regardlessofthecontextinwhichitarises.Theaccountant,theinvestor,andthegeneralpublicwillinthelongrunbenefitwhentheliabilityofthecertifiedpublicaccountantfornegligentmisrepresentationismeasuredbythe_foreseeability_Ԁstandard. e  Ѐ X XT14 <DL!!4),,XXT_Weiner,_Ԁsupra,#dDq4#DdԀ20SanDiegoL.Rev.at260(1983).H.Rosenblum,Inc.v.Adler, e supra,93N.J.324,461A.2d138(1983),presentedanotherrationaleforexpansive e accountantliability.TheRosenblumcourtheldthatthe auditorsfunctionhas e  expandedfromthatofawatchdogformanagementtoanindependentevaluatoroftheadequacyandfairnessoffinancialstatementsissuedbymanagementtostockholders,creditorsandothers.Id.at346,461A.2dat149.Inemphasizing e  thepotentialdeterringeffectoftheexpandedliabilityruleontheconductandcostofaudits,thecourtopinedthat,byimposingadutyofcaretoforeseeableusersoftheaudit,accountantswould engageinmorethoroughreviews,which,inturn,shouldreducethenumberofnegligenceclaimsagainstauditors.Id.at350,461 e A.2dat152.  B.    Thequestionwenowmustansweriswhich,ifany,oftheapproachesmostcloselyreflectsthepolicyconcernsin,andattheheartof,ourcases.TheCourtofSpecialAppealsadoptedtheCreditAllianceformulationoftheUltramares e! approach,includingthetestthatcaseenunciatedtodeterminewhetheragivenrelationship,admittedlynotoneofprivity,istheequivalentofprivity.Itdidsoonlyaftersatisfyingitselfthat whilethesecriteria[prescribedbythetest]permitsomeflexibilityintheapplicationofthedoctrineofprivitytoaccountantsliability,theydonotrepresentadeparturefromtheprinciplesarticulatedin_Ultramares_, e+'' _Glanzer_,andWhite,[onwhichwepreviouslyhaverelied,]butrather,theyare e intendedtopreservethewisdomandpolicysetforththerein.CreditAlliance,65 e N.Y.2dat551,483N.E.2dat118.ThiswasaccomplishedbyanalyzingthecasesonwhichCreditAlliancerelied_Glanzer_,supra,_Ultramares_,supra,Whitev. e  _Guarente_,43N.Y.2d356,372N.E.2d315(1977),thecompanioncasetoCredit e  Alliance,EuropeanAmericanBank&TrustCo.v._Strauhs_Ԁ&Kaye,104A.D.2d e  1063,480N.Y.S.2d299(1984)andSecurityPacificBusinessCredit,Inc.,v.Peat e  MarwickMain&Co.,79N.Y.2d695,597N.E.2d1080(1992),decided e subsequently.  Thepetitionerdoesnotquarrelwiththeintermediateappellatecourtsholdinginsofarasitrequiresproofofprivityoritsequivalenttoestablishanaccountingmalpracticeclaim.Asitseesit,̀8  [_t]he_Ԁintermediatecourterred...inacceptinganaccountantsknowledgeofathirdpartysrelianceontheaccountantsworkproductasthelegalequivalentofprivity.Knowledgethattheplaintiffisrelyingononesworkproductissignificantonlyinthatitestablishesthattheplaintiffsharmwasforeseeable.Whileotherjurisdictionshaveadoptedaforeseeabilitystandardinassessingtortliability,thisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthedutytoavoideconomicharmcannotbepredicatedonforeseeabilityalone.Theremustbeanintimatenexusbetweentheparties.  WeagreewiththeCourtofSpecialAppeals.ThereasonslieinafulleranalysisoftheNewYorklineofcases.2   16       e($$ F- e     C.    Theconcerncausedbyholdingdefendantsliablefornegligenceandnegligentmisrepresentationtopartieswithwhomtheyhaveno_contractural_relationship,wheretheonlydamagesareeconomic,isreflectedinthecaselawcomprisingthe_Ultramares_doctrine.In_Glanzer_,supra,233N.Y.at23738,135   N.E.at275,theplaintiffspurchasedbeansfromamerchant,thepriceofwhichwastobedeterminedbytheirweight.Thebuyersreceivedacopyofthecertifiedweightsheetthatwaspreparedbypublicweighers,whoweighedthebagsuponthesellersrequest.Id.Uponlearningthattheactualweightwaslessthanthatamount  specifiedinthecertifiedweightsheet,thepurchaserssuedthepublicweighers.Althoughtheplaintiffshadnocontractwiththeweigher,thecourtaffirmedajudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffs,holdingthattheyweretheknownandintendedbeneficiariesofthecontractbetweenthesellerandtheweigher,and,therefore,a  beneficiaryofthedutyowedbytheweigher.Seeid.at23839,135_N.E._Ԁat275  76.ItQreasoned:8  Wethinkthelawimposesadutytowardbuyeraswellassellerinthesituationheredisclosed.Theplaintiffsuseofthecertificateswasnotanindirectorcollateralconsequenceoftheactionoftheweighers.Itwasaconsequencewhich,totheweighers,totheweighersknowledge,wastheendandaimofthetransaction._Bech_,VanSiclen&Co.ordered,butGlanzerBrothersweretouse.Thedefendantsheldthemselvesouttothepublicasskilledandcarefulintheircalling.Theyknewthatthebeanshadbeensold,andthatonthefaithoftheircertificatepaymentwouldbemade.Theysentacopytotheplaintiffsfortheverypurposeofinducingaction.Allthistheyadmit.Insuchcircumstances,assumptionofthetaskofweighingwastheassumptionofadutytoweighcarefullyforthebenefitofallwhoseconductwastobegoverned.Wedonotneedtostatethedutyintermsofcontractorofprivity.Growingoutofacontract,ithasnonethelessanoriginnotexclusively_contractural_.Giventhecontractandtherelation,thedutyisimposedbylaw.  Id.Thecourtalsoobserved, [_o]ne_Ԁwhofollowsacommoncallingmaycome  underadutytoanotherwhomheserves,thoughathirdmaygivetheorderormakethepayment,citingasexamples,thesurgeonwhounskillfullysetsthewoundedarmofachild,forwhichthechildsfatherisobligatedtopayandabaileewhocarelesslykeepsgoodsbelongingtooneparty,butdeliveredbyanother.Id.at239, ! 135_N.E._Ԁat276.Justassignificant,however,ifnotmoreso,thecourtrecognizedtheexistenceofdecisionsholdinglawyersnotliabletothirdparties, whom[they]didnotmeantoserve,forsupplyingcertificatesoftitletoclients,id.at240,135 '## _N.E._Ԁat276,butitcontrastedthosedecisionswithothersinwhichthesearcherofatitlewhopreparesanabstractattheorderofaclientanddeliversittoanotherto +'' induceactiononthefaithofit,concluding, constantlytheboundsofdutyareenlargedbyknowledgeofaprospectiveuse._,   17      _ԀId.at240,135_N.E._Ԁat276,citing,  amongothercases,McPhersonv.BuickMotorCo.,217N.Y.382,393,111_N.E._  1050,105354(1916).[Insummary,thecourtstated:8  Thedefendants,acting,notcasuallynorasmereservants,butinpursuitofanindependentcallingweighedandcertifiedattheorderofonewiththeveryendandaimofshapingtheconductofanother.Diligencewasowing,notonlytohimwhoordered,buttohimalsowhorelied.  N14 <DL!!X!#N_Glanzer_,at242,135_N.E._Ԁat277.    While_Glanzer_maysupportthetrendtowardabandoningthestrict  adherencetotherequirementofprivity,sothatnotonlythosewithacontractualrelationshipmaysuefornegligenceornegligentmisrepresentation,italsoclearlyrecognizesthatadefendantsknowledgeofathirdpartysrelianceonthedefendantsactionmaybeimportantinthedeterminationofwhetherthatdefendantowesthatpartyadutyofcare.  _Ultramares_isnottothecontrary.There,theplaintiffwasacreditorofthe   clientofthedefendantaccountant,who,relyingonthebalancesheetpreparedbythedefendant,loanedtheclientmoney.Althoughreflectingthat,generally,theaccountantwasawarethatthebalancesheetswouldbeshowntoothers,thefacts &"" donotindicatethatitwasawareofthetransactionbetweenitsclientandtheplaintiff,eitherbeforeorafteritwasconsummated,orthatitwasadvisedofthespecificpurposeforwhichthecertifiedbalancesheetwasdesired.Itistrue,ofcourse,thatthecourtrefusedtheplaintiffsinvitationtoimposeadutyofcarefornegligence,onthepartofaccountants,tothecreditorsandinvestorstowhomitsclientmayexhibititsworkproduct,anddistinguished_Glanzer_,atleastinpart,as   restingonacontractualfoundation,that theservicerenderedbythedefendantin_Glanzer_Ԁv.Shepardwasprimarilyfortheinformationofathirdperson,ineffect,if  notinname,apartytothecontract,andonlyincidentallyforthatoftheformal_promisee_.Id.at183,174_N.E._Ԁat446.Butitisalsotruethatitdeterminedthat,  despite [t]herangeoftransactionsinwhichacertificateofauditmightbeexpectedtoplayapartwasasindefiniteandwideasthepossibilitiesofthebusinessthatwasmirroredinthesummary,id.at174,174_N.E._Ԁat#dDA#DdԀ442,the  plaintiffsclaimwasbasedonitsbeingsimplyamemberofthepublic,oneof theindeterminateclassofpersonswho,presentlyorinthefuture,mightdealwith[thedefendant]inrelianceontheaudit.Id.at183,174_N.E._Ԁat#dDm#DdԀ446.Indeed,whilethe " courtacknowledgeditwasintendedthat,intheusualcourseofbusinessthebalancesheet,whencertified,wouldbeexhibitedtobanks,creditors,stockholdersandothers accordingtotheneedsoftheoccasion,asthebasisoffinancialdealings,itpointedoutthat [_n]othing_Ԁwassaidastothepersonstowhom[copies]wouldbeshownortheextentornumberofthetransactionsinwhichthey ,(( wouldbeused.Id.at174,174_N.E._Ԁat#dD|n#DdԀ442.And therewasnomentionofthe  plaintiff...whichtillthenhadnevermadeadvancestothe[accountantsclient].Id.    Ultramares,indistinguishingGlanzer,gavegreateremphasistothe   contractualanalysisbywhichtheGlanzercourtindicated,albeitwith   circuitousness,thecasecouldbeexplained.ThatexplanationofthedistinctionbetweenthecaseswasalsothefocusofJacques.Thus,ourreferenceinJacques,   307Md.at536,515A.2dat760,to thecontractualrelationindiscussingUltramaresmaysuggestthat,inordertofindaduty,theremustbethepresenceor  absenceofacontractualrelationship.Aswehaveseen,however,therelationshipbetweentheplaintiffsandthedefendantinGlanzerwassuchthatthedefendant  knewboththepurposeforwhichitsworkproductwastobeusedtosettheamountofpaymentdueandifnottheidentityofthefinaluser,thespecificclassofpersonswhocouldandwouldrelyonthatworkproduct.Thatknowledgeneedstobecontrastedwiththatpossessedbythedefendantin_Ultramares_,whoknew   onlygenerallythattheinformationitprovidedwouldberelieduponbyothers.Thus,giventhepolicyobjective,expressedin_Ultramares_,limitingthe $  indeterminateclassofprospectiveplaintiffswhomayincidentallyrelyontheauditpreparedbythedefendant,toasmallerclass,predictableastoitsuse,andwelldefined,atleastastotheclassaffected,asofthetimeofthemisrepresentation,acrucialfactordistinguishingthe_Ultramares_andGlanzercasesistheextentto ,(( whichthedefendantshadknowledgeofthepurposeforwhichtheresultsoftheircontracturalundertakingwouldbeusedandtheidentity,orclass,ofthosewhowoulduse,andthusrelyon,it.  Underlyingthe_Ultramares_analysisisthenotionthatitisunfair,extreme,   andoutofproportion,tosubjectadefendanttonegligenceliability,withoutlimitation,forwhichtherehasbeenonlyeconomicdamagessufferedbythirdparties,withwhomthatdefendanthasnomeaningfulrelationship:8  Ifliabilityfornegligenceexists,athoughtlesssliporblunder,thefailuretodetectatheftorforgerybeneaththecoverofdeceptiveentries,mayexposeaccountantstoaliabilityinanindeterminateamountforanindeterminatetimetoanindeterminateclass.Thehazardsofabusinessconductedonthesetermsaresoextremeastoenkindledoubtwhetheraflawmaynotexistintheimplicationofadutythatexposestotheseconsequences.  Id.at179,174_N.E._Ԁat#dDq#DdԀ444.Moreover,  8  [_e]very_Ԁonemakingapromisehavingthequalityofacontractwillbeunderadutytothepromiseebyvirtueofthepromise,butunderanotherduty,apartfromcontract,toanindefinitenumberofpotentialbeneficiarieswhenperformancehasbegun.Theassumptionofonerelationwillmeaninvoluntaryassumptionofaseriesofnewrelations,inescapablyhookedtogether.N14 <DL!!X!#N  Id.at189,174_N.E._Ԁat#dDf}#DdԀ448,quotingMochCo.v._Rensselaer_ԀWaterCo.,247N.Y. # 160,168,159_N.E._Ԁ896,899(1928).Andtheindeterminateorgeneralnatureofthebeneficiariesofapromiseaffecttheremedythatisavailable,evenwhenthereisatrendawayfromthestrictenforcementofprivity:8  Eveninthe[fieldofcontractlaw]...theremedyisnarrowerwherethebeneficiariesofthepromiseareindeterminateorgeneral.W:4),,4 <DL!X!#W ,(( Somethingmoremustthenappearthananintentionthatthepromiseshallredoundtothebenefitofthepublicortothatofaclassofindefiniteextension.Thepromisemustbesuchastobespeaktheassumptionofadutytomakereparationdirectlytotheindividualmembersofthepublicifthebenefitislost. !! T14 <DL!!4),,XXTId.at181,174_N.E._Ԁat#dD3#DdԀ445,quoting_Moch_ԀCo.v._Rensselaer_ԀWaterCo.,247N.Y.   at164,159_N.E._Ԁat897.  Nosuchindeterminateorgeneralbeneficiarieswereinvolvedin_Glanzer_,   ratherknownandforeseeable ones: XW:4),,4 <DL!X!#W X Herewassomethingmorethantherenditionofaserviceintheexpectationthattheonewhoorderedthecertificatewoulduseitthereafterintheoperationofhisbusinessasoccasionmightrequire.Herewasacasewherethetransmissionofthecertificatetoanotherwasnotmerelyonepossibilityamongmanybuttheendandaimofthetransaction,ascertainandimmediateanddeliberatelywilledasifahusbandweretoorderagowntobedeliveredtohiswife,oratelegraphcompany,contractingwiththesenderofamessage,weretotelegraphitwronglytothedamageofthepersonexpectedtoreceiveit...Thebondwassocloseastoapproachthatofprivity,ifnotcompletelyonewithit.Notsointhecaseathand.Noonewouldbelikelytourgethattherewasacontractualrelation,orevenoneapproachingit,attherootofanydutythatwasowingfromthedefendantsnowbeforeustotheindeterminateclassofpersonswho,presentlyorinthefuture,mightdealwiththeSterncompanyinrelianceontheaudit.Ӏ X XT14 <DL!!4),,XXTId.at18283,174_N.E._Ԁat#dD#DdԀ44546. "   Thus,in_Glanzer_theplaintiffsidentity,oratleasttheclassinwhichthey $  belonged,andthattheyweregoingtouse,andthereforerelyon,theinformation,wasactuallyknowntothedefendant,whilein_Ultramares_,otherthanasamember ($$ ofthepublic,thedefendanthadnorelationshipatallwiththeplaintiffthatprovidedthedefendantwithanyinformationbearingonitsliabilityfornegligence. ,(( Inthatregard,itisimportanttonotethattherequirementof contractualrelation,orevenoneapproachingit,_Ultramares_,supraat183,174_N.E._Ԁat446,is,like  beingthe endandaimofthetransaction,_Glanzer_,supraat238,135_N.E._Ԁat275,  apredictorofliabilityanditsmagnitude,theimportanceofbothofwhichwasrecognizedbythe_Ultramares_courtinitsdiscussionofInternationalProductsCo.   v.Erie,244N.Y.331,155_N.E._Ԁ662(1927):   8  Herewasadeterminaterelation,thatofbailorandbailee,eitherpresentorprospective,withpeculiaropportunityforknowledgeonthepartofthebaileeastothesubjectmatterofthestatementandwithcontinuingdutytocorrectitiferroneous....Thereisaclassofcaseswhereapersonwithinwhosespecialprovinceitlaytoknowaparticularfact,hasgivenanerroneousanswertoaninquirymadewithregardtoitbyapersondesirousofascertainingthefactforthepurposeofdetermininghiscourseaccordingly,andhasbeenheldboundtomakegoodtheassurancehehasgiven.  N14 <DL!!X!#N_Ultramares_,supraat18384,174_N.E._Ԁat446,quotingHerschell,L.C.,inDerryv.  Peek,[L.R.]14A.C.337,360.W:4),,4 <DL!X!#W  ?,XyX4),,XX?  Insubsequentcases,theNewYorkCourtofAppealsunequivocallystatedthepolicyunderpinningsof,andcleareduptheambiguitysurrounding,theUltramarescase.InWhitev._Guarente_,43N.Y.2d356,372N.E.2d315(1977)#dDZ#Dd, " theissuepresentedwas whetheraccountantsretainedbyalimitedpartnershiptoperformauditingandtaxreturnservicesmaybeheldresponsibletoanidentifiablegroupoflimitedpartnersfornegligenceintheexecutionofthoseprofessionalservices.Id.at358,372N.E.2dat317.Inthatcase,alimitedpartnershipwas *&& formed,statingitspurposetobetoserve asahedgefundthroughwhichthefunds ,(( *5     ofitsPartnersmaybeutilizedininvestingandtradinginmarketablesecuritiesandrightsandoptionsrelatingthereto.Id.Theagreementrequiredthatanauditbe  performed,fortheperformanceofwhichandtopreparethepartnershiptaxreturns,thedefendantaccountantswereretained.Id.at359,372N.E.2dat#dD#DdԀ317.In   additiontotheauditrequirement,theagreementprescribedthecapitalcontributionofthelimitedpartners,prohibiteditswithdrawalexceptasprescribedandprovidedthat properandcompletebooksofaccountshallbekeptandshallbeopentoinspectionbyanyofthepartners.Id.Thecourtheld, atleastonthefactshere,  anaccountantsliabilitymaybesoimposed.Id.at358,372N.E.2dat#dD#DdԀ317.    Inreachingitsdecision,thecourtcontrastedthefactsinitscasewiththosein_Ultramares_.Itnotedthat _Ultramares_...presentedanoticeablydifferent  picturethanthathere,sincethereinvolvedwasanindeterminateclassofpersonswho,presentlyorinthefuture,mightdealwiththe(debtor-_promisee_)inrelianceontheaudit.Id.at361,372N.E.2dat#dD#DdԀ318,quoting_Ultramares_,255N.Y.at183,  174N.E.at446.Bycontrast,thecourtpointedout:8  Here,theservicesoftheaccountantwerenotextendedtoafacelessorunresolvedclassofpersons,butrathertoaknowngrouppossessedofvestedrights,markedbyadefinablelimitandmadeupofcertaincomponents....Theinstantsituationdidnotinvolveprospectivelimitedpartners,unknownatthetimeandwhomightbeinducedtojoin,butratheractuallimitedpartners,fixedanddetermined.Here,accountantAndersenwasretainedtoperform an ($$ auditandpreparethetaxreturnsofAssociates,knowntobealimitedpartnership, andtheaccountantmusthavebeenawarethatalimited *&& partnerwouldnecessarilyrelyonormakeuseoftheauditandtaxreturnsofthepartnership,oratleastconstituentsofthem,inorderto ",(( properlypreparehisorherowntaxreturns.Thiswaswithinthecontemplationofthepartiestotheaccountingretainer.Insuchcircumstances,assumptionofthetaskofauditingandpreparingthereturnswastheassumptionofa dutytoauditandpreparecarefully  forthebenefitofthoseinthefixed,definableandcontemplatedgroupwhoseconductwastobegoverned,since,giventhecontractandtherelation,thedutyisimposedbylawanditisnotnecessarytostatethedutyintermsofcontractorprivity....  Id.at36162,372N.E.2dat#dD.#DdԀ31819.Thecourtstatedfurtherthat [_t]his_Ԁplaintiff    seeksredress,notasamerememberofthepublic,butasoneofasettledandparticularizedclassamongthemembersofwhichthereportwouldbecirculatedforthespecificpurposeoffulfillingthelimitedpartnershipagreeduponarrangement.Id.at363,372N.E.2dat#dDئ#DdԀ320.    SinceCreditAlliance,itisnowclearthataccountantsmaybeheldliablefor  negligencetononcontractualpartieswhentheyareawarethatthefinancialreportstheypreparearetobeusedforaparticularpurposeorpurposes,thataknownpartyorpartiesareintendedtorelyonthosereportsforthatpurposeorpurposesandtheyhavearelationshipwiththatpartythatindicatesthattheyunderstandthatpartysreliance.Id.at551,483N.E.2dat118.These criteriaweregleaned,the ! courtsaid,from examinationof_Ultramares_and_Glanzer_and[thecourts]recent # affirmationoftheirholdingsinWhite.Id.Moreover,thecourtmadeclearthat: %!! 8  Whilethesecriteriapermitsomeflexibilityintheapplicationofthedoctrineofprivitytoaccountantsliability,theydonotrepresentadeparturefromtheprincipledarticulatedin_Ultramares_,_Glanzer_and )%% White,but,rathertheyareintendedtopreservethewisdomand *&& policysetforththerein.   ,(( Id.    CreditAlliancehasclarifiedtheambiguitysurroundingthenatureofthe  relationshipbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendantsufficienttoconstitutetherequirednexusthatapproachesprivityunder_Ultramares_and_Glanzer_.Clearly,it   mustbesuchthatwouldallowthedefendanttopredictitsliabilityexposure.Nevertheless,oneofthecriteriaremainsunclear,thenatureofthelinkbetweentheaccountantandthenoncontractualplaintiffrequiredtosatisfytheCreditAlliance   test.ThatwasthefocusofSecurityPacificBus.Credit,Inc.v.PeatMarwickMain  &Co.,79N.Y.2d695,597N.E.2d1080(1992).    Inthatcase,theplaintiffhadloanedaclientoftheaccountantmoneyonalineofcredit.Whentheclientdefaulted,itsuedtheaccountant,withwhomithadnocontractualorotherdirectbusinessrelationship,allegingnegligentovervaluationoftheclientsaccountsreceivableandmerchandiseinventory,reflectedinanunqualifiedauditopinionandfinancialstatements,onwhichtheplaintiffreliedinmakingapartoftheloan.ToestablishthethirdoftheCreditAlliance   criteria,theplaintiffreliedonatelephonecallfromitsvicepresidenttothedefendantsauditpartnerduring,andwithrespectto,theapplicableauditandtheauditworkpaperstheclientsuppliedtheplaintiff.ApplyingtheCreditAlliance &"" test,(   18      ׀adividedCourtofAppealsheldthatthesingletelephonecalldidnotsuffice ($$ toallegethenecessaryrelationship.SeeSecurityPacific,supraat704,597N.E.2d  at1085.Thecourtreasonedthattheauditpartnersresponsestotheplaintiffsdinquiries,8  placedaftertheauditfieldworkwascompletedwere,viewedinthemostfavorablelightplaintiffplacesuponthem,limitedtogeneralitiesthatnothinguntowardhadbeenuncoveredinthecourseoftheauditandthatanunqualifiedopinionwouldissue,certifyingthetentativedraftwhichplaintiffhadreceivedfrom[theclient]itself.(SecurityPac.BusinessCreditv.PeatMarwickMain&Co.,   165A.D.2d622,626,[569N.Y.S.2d57])._SPBC_seffortstoelevatethesefactstothecriticalrankandlinkingrelationshipakintoprivity,asourprecedentsrequire,areunavailing._SPBC_Ԁcannotunilaterallycreatesuchanextraordinaryobligation,imposingnegligenceliabilityofsignificantcommercialdimensionandconsequencesbymerelyinterposingandannouncingitsrelianceinthisfashion.  Id.at705,597N.E.2dat1085._0    19      _Ԁ    D.    Asindicated,weagreewiththeintermediateappellatecourt,thattheappropriateanalysisisthatenunciatedinCreditAlliance,elucidatingthe  Ultramaresdoctrine.ThisCourthavingfrequentlyreliedontheNewYorklineof   casestoresolveandexplainadefendantsliability,orlackthereof,toathirdparty,withwhomthedefendantisnotincontractualprivity,itisfittingthatthisCourtcontinuethatrelianceinresolvinganissueofaccountantliabilitytothirdparties,especiallysincethatisthecontextinwhichtheUltramarescasewasdecided.    UndertheCreditAllianceformulationofthetest,therequiredlinking  conduct,whilethatoftheaccountant,mustbesuchthatevincestheaccountantsknowledgeoftheplaintiffsreliance,and,thus,itsliabilityexposure.Nothinginthattestlimitsthesourceoftheevidencebearingontheconductoftheaccountantorprescribesthattheconductexceedaminimumlevel.NorcantherebereadintoCreditAlliancearequirementthattheaccountant eitherdirectlyconveytheaudit  reporttothethirdpartyorotherwiseactinsomemannerspecificallycalculatedtoinducerelianceonthereport._Bily_,3Cal.4that388,#dD#DdԀ834P.2dat755.TheCredit " Alliancetestcallsfortheproductionofevidenceof someconductonthepartof $  theaccountantslinkingthemtothatpartyorparties,whichevincesthe &"" accountantsunderstandingofthatpartysreliance.CreditAlliance,supraat551,  483N.E.2dat110.Therewas,tobesure,anabundanceofconductallegedinCreditAlliance;however,thatconductallegeddoesnot,andtheCourtdidnot  purportto,setthethresholdforfuturecases.AllthatisrequiredisthatthetrieroffactcouldfindthattheevidencesufficestoapprisethedefendantoftheelementsoftheCreditAlliancetest,i.e.,thepurposeforwhichitsworkproductistobe   used,whoisintendedatthetimeoftheengagementtouseitforthatpurpose,seeJonesv.HyattIns.Agency,Inc.,356Md.639,65859,741A.2d1099,110809  (1999),andsomeconnectionwiththatpartythatistheequivalentofprivity,suchasknowledgeofthatpartysreliance.  ApplyingtheCreditAllianceanalysistothefactssubjudiceproducesa  clearresult,astheCourtofSpecialAppealsheld,thattheliabilityofthepetitionertotherespondentsisamatterforthetrieroffact;andtheintermediateappellatecourtcorrectlyreversedthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthepetitioner.  TheaffidavitofGeorgeKatzdelineatedtherelationshipbetweenthepetitionerandtherespondents.ItstressedthatGeorgeKatzmetfacetofacewitharepresentativeofthepetitionerandhissononseveraloccasionstolookovertheauditsandreportsofMagneticspriortomakingloansto,orsecuringloansfor,Magnetics,andthatWS&BpersonnelknewthattheKatzseshadreliedoninformationsuppliedbyWS&Bindecidingtolendmoniesto,orsecuringloans ,(( for,_ԢMagnetics_.Infact,asrelatestothe$425,000loan,hestatedthathemetwithaMr.Traceyofthepetitionerfortheexpresspurposeofdiscussingtheloan.Duringthatmeeting,accordingtotheaffidavit,Mr.KatzwasgivenacopyoftheϢMagnetics,Inc.scashflowanalysisandaprojectedprofitandlossstatementforthecomingyear.Healsoindicatedthathewasgivenacopyoftheauditfor_ԢMagnetics_Ԁbythepetitioner,whomheadvisedthathewouldconsiderlendingmoneyto_ԢMagnetics_,dependenton_ԢMagnetics_financialcondition,asreflectedintheinformationwithwhichhewasprovidedbythepetitioner,includingfinancialreportsthepetitionerpreparedfor_ԢMagnetics_.  TheCourtofSpecialAppealsconcluded:8  Assumingthetruthofthesefacts,WS&Bwasawarethatthefinancialreportwasgoingtobeusedforaparticularpurpose,i.e.,tohelpMr.Katzdecidewhethertomakethe$425,000loanto_ԢMagnetics_.Moreover,WS&BknewthatitwasMr.Katzwhowasgoingtorelyonthefinancialreport,becauseheinformedMr.Traceyofthisfactatafacetofacemeeting.ThesepointsaddressCredit  Alliancefactorsoneandtwo.8 @   X X Finally,ifMr.Katzsaffidavitiscredited,therewassufficientconductonthepartofWS&B,throughMr.Tracey,tomeetthelinkingconduct,whichisfactorthreeoftheCreditAlliancetest.Mr.TraceymetwithMr.Katztodiscuss_ԢMagnetics_financialconditioninorderforMr.Katztodeterminewhethertolendmoneyto_ԢMagnetics_.Moreover,Mr.Traceygaveacopyofthe1989auditdirectlytoMr.Katz.TheseactionsonthepartofMr.Traceycould &"" beconstruedbyajuryasdemonstratingMr.TraceysknowledgethatMr.KatzintendedtorelyonWS&Bsfinancialrepresentationsinthe1989audit.BasedonthefactssetforthinMr.Katzsaffidavit,adisputeofmaterialfactwaspresentedastothe$425,000loan. X XWeagreewiththatanalysisand,so,weaffirm. ,(( ЇJUDGMENTAFFIRMED,WITHCOSTS.#dD#Dd  dISSConcurringOpinion byWilner,J.  follows: ,(( *= <   ќ  ConcurringOpinionbyWilner,J.:     S   IconcurintheresultreachbytheCourt.Iwouldreachthatresult,however,byusingtheapproachsetforthin552oftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,   ratherthanbytyingourselvestoone1985casefromNewYork. S AsChiefJudgeBellpointsout,theRestatementapproachhasbeenadoptedin28Statesandclearlyrepresentsthemajoritysentimentthroughoutthecountry.Accountingfirms,increasingly,arenational,oratleastregional,intheiroperations,anditseemstomewisertochooseconsistencywiththatmajorityview.WegainlittlebytyingourselvestotheseparateviewofoneState.Thefactpatternsthatariseinthisareaobviouslyvary,andallconcerned"theaccountingprofession,thosewhoinsureaccountantsagainstmalpracticeclaims,thosewhodealwithaccountants,andthelegalcommunitythateitheradvisesaccountantsorbecomesinvolvedinmalpracticeclaims"wouldbebetterservedbyhavingthatlargerbodyofcaselaw,thatisfollowedinmostoftherestofthecountry,asguidance.TheRestatementview,moreover,isareasonableone.Itlimitstheaccountantsliabilityforprofessionalnegligencetotheaccountantsclientandtothosethirdpartiestowhomtheaccountanteitherintendstosupplytheinformationoractuallyknowstheclientintendstosupplyit.Thatlimitedextensionofliabilityisentirelyappropriate.    ,((