ÿWPCn$ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0D’ U:Ö 0T 0^d 0h 0r* 0|œ 0† bž 0¦ 1u6 0d« 0â BñU >B)LU*uU*Ÿ D3ÉDCü AM? 0@Œä̰,ÇÝóBÐfv~xvÓö AOÉ"Æ# 0DÞ# D/"$ BQ$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ &U'U(D)*D+,D-«.Ó€8DÒ 3|x82 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(Tf2a‚$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ,°ÑÑü°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ô¾üôXXÔÔ€ômÛôôô¾üÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Arial%%%%'ÿÿdxd''''7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌSeptember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRobinson€also€alleged,€in€this€action,€outrageous€conduct€and€invasion€of€privacy.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€Omer›ððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€these€claims€and€the€Court€of€AppealsÏaffirmed.€€Robinson€did€not€seek€to€appeal€from€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€as€to€those€claims.Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d›€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993).Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€the€allegations,€sometime€prior€to€1992,€Omer›€promised€œLineberry›€a€fee€inÏexchange€for€personal€injury€referrals.€€œLineberry›€made€such€a€referral€that€resulted€in€a€substantialÏsettlement,€but€œOmer›€refused€to€pay€the€promised€fee.€€œLineberry›€apparently€felt€mistreated€andÏfiled€a€complaint€against€œOmer›€with€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€œOmer›€received€theÏcomplaint€on€December€20,€1993€and€called€the€district€attorney€general€on€January€6,€1994.Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€we€pointed€out€in€òòByrdóó,€and€reaffirmed€in€òòMcCarleyóó,€a€nonmoving€party€may€satisfy€his€orÏher€burden€by€(1)€pointing€to€evidence€overlooked€or€ignored€by€the€moving€party€that€establishesÏa€material€factual€dispute,€(2)€by€rehabilitating€the€evidence€attacked€in€the€moving€partyððs€papers,Ï(3)€by€producing€additional€evidence€showing€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€for€trial,€or€(4)Ïsubmitting€an€affidavit€explaining€why€further€discovery€is€necessary€as€provided€for€in€Tenn.€R.Civ›.ÏP.€56.06.€òòMcCarleyóó,€___€S.W.2d€at€___;€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215,€n.€6.€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ , ÑÑ k# ÑÑ  ÑÑ€' §u` ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€Ðd&ÓÓ&€((XÐd&ÓÓ  ÓÔ€&¼ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ÔœÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ€)XÔòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÔ€)¼ÔÌÔ€)XÔÌWILLIAM€ROBINSON,€a/k/aà àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó óà àò òSeptember€œ15,›Ï1997ó óÌBILLY€C.€ROBINSON,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€CIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Barbara€N.€HaynesÌœVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€R.€œOMER›,€SR.,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|?ôØ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)à àNo.€€œ01S01›„9611„CV„00228ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEóó:à àà àòòFOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTóó:ÌÌRobert€L.€œCallis›à àà àà àà àà àWinston€S.€EvansÌœCallis›€&€Hersheyà àà àà àà àà àEvans,€Jones,€&€œReynolds›ÌMt.€Juliet,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÔ€)¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€)XÔÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€) ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€)XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óó óÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED€IN€PARTÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€REINSTATED.à àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.ÌÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€’¤XXdêXXdê7ÑÓÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà àThe€plaintiff,€William€Robinson,€brought€this€action€against€the€defendant,Ïattorney€James€R.€Omer,€Sr.,€alleging€negligent€misrepresentation.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Robinson€assertsÏthat€he€agreed€to€secretly€videotape€the€sexual€encounters€of€his€friend,€and€OmerððsÏclient,€Dewey€œLineberry›,€in€reliance€upon€œOmer›ððs€erroneous€advice€that€theÏvideotaping€was€legally€permissible.€€€Robinson€initiated€this€action€seeking€to€recoverÏcompensatory€and€punitive€damages€after€he€settled€the€civil€lawsuits€which€were€filedÏagainst€him€by€some€of€the€women€who€were€secretly€taped.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€Omerððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€but€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€reversed,€finding€disputed€issues€of€material€fact.€€Thereafter,€we€grantedÏOmerððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€We€emphasize€that€œOmer›€denies€givingÏsuch€advice€to€œLineberry›.€€€However,€taking€the€allegations€as€true€and€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Robinson,€the€nonmoving€party,€as€we€must€forÏpurposes€of€summary€judgment,€we€conclude€that€the€allegedly€negligent€and€falseÏlegal€advice€was€supplied€for€the€guidance€of€others€in€personal€matters€rather€thanÏbusiness€transactions.€Therefore,€the€defendant€met€his€burden€of€negating€anÏessential€element€of€the€plaintiffððs€claim€for€negligent€misrepresentation€byÏestablishing€that€the€alleged€false€information€was€not€supplied€for€the€guidance€ofÏothers€in€their€òòbusiness€transactions.€€òòóóRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó,€Section€552Ï(1977).€€The€burden€then€shifted€to€the€plaintiff,€the€non„moving€party,€to€show€that€theÏinformation€was€supplied€for€a€business€purpose.€€The€plaintiff€failed€to€meet€thatÏburden.€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment.€€The€Ïjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€with€respect€to€the€claim€of€negligentÏmisrepresentation€is€reversed,€and€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€theÏdefendant€is€reinstated.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óóóÓ  Óà àBecause€summary€judgment€was€awarded€to€the€defendant,€theÏfollowing€statement€of€facts€is€based€upon€the€most€favorable€view€of€the€recordÏtowards€the€plaintiff,€the€nonmoving€party.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà àWilliam€Robinson,€the€plaintiff,€and€Dewey€Lineberry,€have€been€friends€andÏbusiness€associates€for€many€years.€€In€1986,€Robinson,€a€contractor€by€trade,€agreedÏto€construct€a€three€story€office€building€for€Lineberry,€a€local€businessman,€in€Mt.ÏJuliet,€Tennessee.€€On€the€third€floor€of€the€building€Robinson€constructed,€atÏLineberryððs€direction,€a€ð ðcamera€roomðð€equipped€with€two€way€mirrors€through€which€aÏperson€could€look€into€a€weight€room€and€bathroom€located€next€to€Lineberryððs€office.€ÏLineberry€told€Robinson€that€he€intended€to€use€the€camera€room€to€secretly€videotapeÏhis€sexual€encounters€because€he€was€concerned€that€he€might€be€falsely€accused€ofÏrape€in€the€future.€€Lineberry€believed€that€having€videotapes€of€his€sexual€encountersÏwould€protect€him€from€such€allegations.€€Robinson€was€aware€of€Lineberryððs€concernÏand€actively€participated€in€the€construction€of€the€camera€room.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€James€R.€Omer,€Sr.,€is€a€licensed€Tennessee€attorney€whoÏrepresented€Lineberry€in€a€variety€of€personal€and€business€matters€between€the€mid„1970's€and€1990.€€According€to€Robinsonððs€amended€complaint,€Omer€advisedÏLineberry,€prior€to€the€construction€of€the€office€building,€that€building€a€camera€roomÏand€secretly€videotaping€sexual€encounters€without€the€consent€of€the€womenÏinvolved€was€completely€legal€and€comparable€to€keeping€a€diary.€€According€to€theÏallegations,€Omer€suggested€that€Lineberry€persuade€his€good€friend€Robinson€to€actÏas€cameraman.€€When€Lineberry€relayed€Omerððs€suggestion,€Robinson€was€reluctantÏto€assume€the€role€of€cameraman.€€However,€Lineberry€called€Omer€from€his€office€forÏthe€purpose€of€assuring€Robinson€of€the€legality€of€the€secret€taping.€€According€to€theÏallegations€of€record,€Omer,€who€had€been€told€Robinson€was€present,€assuredÏLineberry€that€the€activity€was€legally€permissible,€and€again€compared€it€to€keeping€aÏdiary.ÌÌà àRobinson€did€not€have€an€attorney„client€relationship€with€Omer,€and€he€neverÏpersonally€received€legal€advice€from€Omer€about€the€legality€of€the€secretÏvideotaping.€€However,€Robinson,€from€the€concealed€camera€room,€secretlyÏvideotaped€numerous€instances€of€Lineberry€having€sexual€intercourse€with€women€inÍthe€weight€room€and€bathroom€which€were€located€on€the€third€floor€of€the€officeÏbuilding.€€Robinson€videotaped€Lineberryððs€sexual€encounters€from€1986€to€1993.€€ÌÌà àThe€videotaping€remained€secret€until€Omer€informed€District€Attorney€General,ÏTom€P.€Thompson,€Jr.,€on€January€6,€1994,€that€Lineberry€had€a€secret€camera€room€inÏhis€office€which€he€had€used€to€film€a€lingerie€party.€€Even€though€he€had€known€aboutÏthe€camera€room,€by€his€own€admission,€for€about€one€year,€Omer€provided€the€districtÏattorney€with€this€information€only€after€receiving€a€complaint€which€Lineberry€had€filedÏagainst€him€with€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€information€provided€by€Omer,€Wilson€County€law€enforcementÏofficers€obtained€a€warrant€to€search€Lineberryððs€office.€€The€search€uncoveredÏvideotapes€of€Lineberry€having€sex€with€various€women.€€Robinson€admitted€to€policeÏthat€he€had€operated€the€video€camera.€€Although€no€criminal€charges€were€filedÏagainst€Lineberry€or€Robinson,€law€enforcement€officials€contacted€several€of€theÏwomen€who€were€taped,€and€four€of€them€filed€civil€lawsuits€against€both€LineberryÍand€Robinson,€alleging,€among€other€things,€invasion€of€privacy€and€outrageousÏconduct.€ÌÌà àRobinson€settled€the€claims€filed€against€him€and€then€instituted€this€lawsuitÏagainst€Omer€asserting€negligent€misrepresentation.€€Robinson€alleged€that€he€reliedÏupon€Omerððs€advice,€given€to€Lineberry€that,€secretly€videotaping€Lineberryððs€sexualÏencounters,€without€the€consent€of€the€women€involved,€was€legally€permissible.€ÏRobinson€claimed€that€Omer€knew€or€should€have€known€that€he€would€rely€upon€thatÏadvice.€€Robinson€also€asserted€claims€of€outrageous€conduct€and€invasion€of€privacy.ÌÌà àOmer€moved€to€dismiss€the€action,€and€the€trial€judge€held€a€hearing€on€theÏmotion.€€Because€matters€outside€the€pleadings€were€presented€and€considered,€theÏtrial€judge€treated€it€as€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€which€she€granted,€in€favor€ofÏOmer,€on€all€three€claims.€€Robinson€appealed,€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€with€respect€to€the€claims€of€invasion€of€privacy€and€outrageousÏconduct,€but€reversed€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€the€negligentÏmisrepresentation€claim.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€œOmer›€permission€to€appeal€and€nowÏreverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€with€respect€to€the€claim€of€negligentÏmisrepresentation,€and€reinstate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òSUMMARY€JUDGMENTóóÌó óà àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€summary€judgmentÏmotion€are€well€settled.€€Our€inquiry€involves€purely€a€question€of€law;€therefore,€weÏreview€the€record€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€to€determine€whether€theÏabsence€of€genuine€issues€of€material€facts€entitle€the€defendant€to€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€òòœMcCarley›€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serviceóó,€___€œS.W.2d›€___€(Tenn.€1997);ÏòòœBain›€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòœMcClung›€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.ÏPartnershipóó,€937€S.W.2d€891,€894€(Tenn.€1996);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210Ï(Tenn.€1993);€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.€56.03.ÌÌà àLikewise,€the€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summaryÏjudgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Mere€œconclusory›€assertions€that€the€non„moving€party€has€no€evidence€are€clearly€insufficient.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.€€TheÏmovant€must€either€affirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„movantððsÏclaim€or€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòMcCarleyóó,€__S.W.2d€at€___;ÏòòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215,€n.€5.€€If€the€movant€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,Ïthe€non„movantððs€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€a€genuineÍissue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€fail.€€òòIdóó.€€If€theÏmovant€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„movant€may€notÏsimply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offer€proof€to€establish€the€existence€of€theÏessential€elements€of€the€claim.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€and€draw€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party.€€òòBainóó,€936ÏS.W.2d€at€622;€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€If€both€the€facts€and€conclusions€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion,Ïsummary€judgment€should€be€granted.€€òòMcClungóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€894;€òòCarvell€v.ÏBottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àAlthough€the€standards€are€strict,€in€this€case€summary€judgment€is€appropriate.€ÏOmer€met€his€burden€of€negating€an€essential€element€of€the€claim€of€negligentÏmisrepresentation.€€The€burden€then€shifted€to€Robinson€to€show€that€the€informationÏwas€supplied€for€guidance€in€business€transactions.€€Robinson€failed€to€satisfy€thatÏburden.€€The€evidence€in€this€record,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Robinson,Íthe€nonmoving€party,€fails€to€establish€the€existence€of€an€essential€element€of€theÏclaim€„„€information€supplied€for€the€guidance€of€others€in€their€òòbusiness€transactions.€€ÌóóÌò òòòÓ  ÓNEGLIGENT€MISREPRESENTATIONÌÓ  Óó óóóà àThis€Court€has€recognized€three€distinct€actions€in€tort€based€uponÏmisrepresentation:€fraud€or€deceit;€strict€liability€under€Section€402B€of€theÏòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€(1965);€and€negligent€misrepresentation€under€SectionÏ552€of€the€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€(1977).€€òòRitter€v.€Custom€Chemicides,€Inc.óó,Ï912€S.W.2d€128,€130€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohn€Martin€Co.€v.€Morse/Diesel,€Inc.óó,€819ÏS.W.2d€428€(Tenn.€1991);€òòJasper€Aviation,€Inc.€v.€McCollum€Aviation,€Inc.óó,€497€S.W.2dÏ240,€242„43€(Tenn.€1972).Ìà àÌà àThis€case€concerns€the€third€cause€of€action,€negligent€misrepresentation.€€ÏTennessee€has€adopted€Section€552€of€the€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ð ðas€theÏguiding€principle€in€negligent€misrepresentation€actions€against€other€professionalsÏand€business€persons.ðð€€òòBethlehem€Steel€Corp.€v.€Ernst€&€Whinneyóó,€822€S.W.2d€592,Ï595€(Tenn.€1991).€€Section€552€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ìà8 àÌÓÓà8 à(1)à8 àOne€who,€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession€orÏemployment,€or€in€any€other€transaction€in€which€he€has€aÏpecuniary€interest,€òòsupplies€false€information€for€theÏguidance€of€others€in€their€business€transactionsóó,€is€subjectÏto€liability€for€pecuniary€loss€caused€to€them€by€theirÏjustifiable€reliance€upon€the€information,€if€he€fails€toÏexercise€reasonable€care€or€competence€in€obtaining€orÏcommunicating€the€information.ÌÌà8 à(2)à8 àExcept€as€stated€in€Subsection€(3),€the€liability€stated€inÏSubsection€(1)€is€limited€to€loss€sufferedÌÌà8 àà8 à(a)€€€by€the€person€or€one€of€a€limited€group€of€persons€forÏwhose€benefit€and€guidance€he€intends€to€supply€theÏinformation€or€knows€that€the€recipient€intends€to€supplyÏœit;à8 àà8 àand›ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€€through€reliance€upon€it€in€a€transaction€that€he€intendsÏthe€information€to€influence€or€knows€that€the€recipient€soÏintends€or€in€a€substantially€similar€transaction.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó,€ðð552€(1977)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àIn€discussing€the€requirements€for€recovery€under€Section€552,€this€Court€hasÏstated€that€liability€in€tort€will€result,€despite€the€lack€of€contractual€privity€between€theÏplaintiff€and€defendant,€when,ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€the€defendant€is€acting€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession,€orÏemployment,€or€in€a€transaction€in€which€he€has€a€pecuniary€(as€opposedÏto€gratuitous)€interest;€andÌÌà8 à(2)€€€the€defendant€supplies€faulty€information€òòmeant€to€guide€others€inÏtheir€business€transactionsóó;€andÌÌà8 à(3)€the€defendant€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€obtaining€orÏà àà àcommunicating€the€information;€andÌÌà8 à(4)€the€plaintiff€justifiably€relies€upon€the€information.ÌÓÓòòÌJohn€Martin€Co.óó,€819€S.W.2d€at€431€(emphasis€added);€òòaccordóó€òòRitteróó,€912€S.W.2d€atÏ130.ÌÌà àApplying€this€formulation€of€the€rule,€this€Court€has€allowed€non„clients€toÏrecover€from€attorneys€under€Section€552.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòCollins€v.€œBinkley›óó,€750€S.W.2dÏ737€(Tenn.€1988);€òòœStinson›€v.€Brandóó,€738€S.W.2d€186€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€these€cases,€theÏlawyers€had€negligently€provided€erroneous€information€in€the€course€of€real€estateÏtransactions€which€was€relied€upon€by€œnonclient›€participants€to€the€transactions.€€ThisÏCourt€held€recovery€was€appropriate,€even€though€the€plaintiffs€were€not€clients,Ïbecause€òòthe€advice€was€given€for€the€guidance€of€the€plaintiffs€in€the€course€of€the€realÏestate€transactionóó€and€reliance€upon€that€advice€was€justifiable€and€foreseeable.ÌÌà àLikewise,€in€the€non„lawyer€cases€involving€application€of€Section€552,Ïrecovery€has€been€allowed€only€when€the€advice€or€information€negligently€suppliedÍwas€given€in€the€course€of€a€commercial€or€business€transaction€òòfor€guidance€of€othersÏin€their€business€transactions.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€€òòBethlehem€Steel€Corp.óó,€822€S.W.2d€at€592Ï(national€accounting€firm€which€negligently€prepared€an€audit€report€regardingÏcustomer€of€manufacturer€held€liable€to€manufacturer€which€relied€upon€the€auditÏreport€to€its€detriment€in€extending€credit€to€customer);€òòJohn€Martin€Coóó.,€819€S.W.2d€atÏ429€(construction€manager€who€negligently€supplied€information€regarding€theÏconstruction€project€held€liable€to€subcontractor€who€relied€upon€the€information€inÏperforming€work€at€the€site);€òòœTartera›€v.€œPalumbo›óó,€453€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.€1970)€(landÏsurveyor€who€negligently€prepared€a€plat€for€the€purchaser€of€property€held€liable€toÏsellers€because€he€had€full€knowledge€that€the€survey€was€to€be€used€for€describingÏthe€property€in€the€warranty€deed€upon€which€both€the€sellers€and€buyers€would€rely);ÏòòœShelby›€v.€Delta€Air€Lines,€Inc.óó,€842€œF.Supp›.€999,€1015€(M.D.€Tenn.€1993)(ð ðTheÏTennessee€cases€involving€negligent€misrepresentation€all€involve€commercialÏtransactions.ðð).€Ó  Óò òòòÌÓ  Óóóó óà àIn€contrast,€the€advice€allegedly€given€by€Omer,€upon€which€Robinson€claims€toÏhave€relied,€was€not€provided€for€the€guidance€of€Lineberry€and€Robinson€in€aÏbusiness€transaction.€€Indeed,€the€conduct€of€Lineberry€and€Robinson,€in€no€way,€wasÏrelated€to€a€commercial€or€business€transaction.€€Robinson€videotaped€LineberryððsÏsexual€encounters€as€a€favor€and€accommodation€to€Lineberry,€as€is€evident€fromÍRobinsonððs€deposition€testimony.€€Robinson€agreed€that€he€considered€Lineberry€to€be€Ïð ða€really€good€friend,ðð€and€said€that€he€received€no€payment€for€operating€the€videoÏcamera€for€Lineberry.€€When€asked€whether€his€ð ðwillingness€to€videotapeðð€wasÏattributable€to€a€desire€to€protect€a€financial€interest€he€had€with€Lineberry€due€to€theirÏbusiness€relationship,€Robinson€responded€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà àA.€€à8 àI€donððt€think€so.€.€.€.ÌÌà àQ.à8 àIððm€just€asking€your€motivation.€€I€mean,€youððve€told€us€thatÏyou€did€it€because€[Lineberry]€asked€you€to,€and€becauseÏhe€wanted€to€be€protected€from€a€false€claim€of€rape.€€AndÏall€Iððm€trying€to€follow€up€on€is€whether€or€not€part€of€yourÏmotivation€was€that,€in€light€of€your€business€relationshipÏwith€him,€you€felt€a€financial€necessity€to€protect€yourselfÏand€him?ÌÌà8 àA.à8 àI€donððt€think€that€would€have€been€a€primary€concern€ofÏmine,€no€sir.ÌÌà8 àQ.à àWould€it€have€been€any€concern€of€yours?ÌÌà8 àA.à àI€canððt€say€as€it€crossed€my€mind,€no,€sir.Ì€€ÌÓÓÌTherefore,€even€assuming,€as€we€must,€that€defendant€Omer€advised€Lineberry€thatÏsecretly€videotaping€his€sexual€encounters,€without€the€consent€of€the€womenÏinvolved,€was€legally€permissible,€Robinsonððs€negligent€misrepresentation€claim€mustÏfail€because€that€advice€was€not€given€for€the€guidance€of€Lineberry€or€Robinson€inÍtheir€business€transactions.€€òòSeeóó€òòœShelby›óó,€842€œF.Supp›.€at€1015€(ð ð[œT]he›€language€ofÏSection€552€expressly€refers€to€the€negligent€supplying€of€false€information€ððfor€theÏguidance€of€others€in€their€òòbusiness€transactionsóó.ðððð)€(emphasis€in€original)€(applyingÏTennessee€law);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPickering€v.€Pickeringóó,€434€œN.W.2d›€758,€762€(S.D.€1989)Ï(husbandððs€claim€of€negligent€misrepresentation€against€wife€for€misleading€him€aboutÏthe€paternity€of€a€child€born€during€their€marriage€failed€because€it€did€not€arise€from€aÏcommercial€or€business€transaction).ÌÑ€3ÑÇà àRobinson€videotaped€Lineberryððs€sexual€activities€solely€as€a€favor€to€his€goodÏfriend.€€œLineberry›€never€paid€Robinson€for€his€efforts,€and€Robinson€testified€that€whenÏhe€decided€to€act€as€cameraman,€business€interests€did€not€ð ðcross[]€his€mind.ðð€ÏTherefore,€the€evidence€in€this€record,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Robinson,Ïfails€to€establish€an€essential€element€of€the€claim€for€negligent€misrepresentation€„„Ïthat€the€allegedly€negligent€advice€given€by€Omer€was€meant€to€guide€others€in€theirÏbusiness€transactions.€Ìò òòòÓ  ÓÌCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€allegedly€negligent€legal€advice€supplied€byÏOmer€was€for€the€guidance€of€others€in€personal€matters€rather€than€businessÏtransactions,€the€defendant€met€his€burden€of€negating€an€essential€element€of€theÏplaintiffððs€claim€of€negligent€misrepresentation€under€Section€552,€òòRestatementÏ(Second)€of€Tortsóó€(1977).€€Consequently,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€isÏreversed€with€respect€to€the€claim€of€negligent€misrepresentation,€and€the€trial€courtððsÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant€is€reinstated.ò òòòÌÓÓà àœÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àœ›à àœóóFRANK€F.€DROWOTA›,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àœJUSTICE›ÌœÌÌÌ̛̜ò òCONCURó ó›ÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌœReid›,€Birch,€Holder,€JJ.òòò òÌóóó 󀜛Ó  Óœ›Ìà àÌà àÌ