Long v. Niles Co., 2010 Mass.App.Div. 43, 46 n. 5, 2010 WL 1139325 (Mass.Dist.Ct.App.Div.2010); Northfield Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 545 N.W.2d 57, 62-63 (Minn.Ct.App.1996); Carlotti v. Emps. of GE Fed. Credit Union No. 1161, 717 A.2d 564, 566-67 (Pa.Super.Ct.1998) (citing conflicting authority); King v. Graham Holding Co., 762 S.W.2d 296, 299-300 (Tex.App.1988); Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wis., 283 Wis.2d 234, 700 N.W.2d 15, 23-24 (2005). 9 . See, e.g., Rudo a home inspector and a real estate broker may have assumed a duty to the buyer to notify the seller on the buyer's behalf of property defects found in the course of the inspection, even though the defendants’ service contracts were apparently silent as to any such duty to notify); Lloyd, 860 P.2d at 1303-04 (<HOLDING>); Blackmon, 419 So.2d at 405-06 (holding that
holding that arbitration clause which was included with product mailed to customer and with proviso that customer could return product within 30 days was binding on customer who did not return computer holding that an insurance company may have assumed a duty to defend a customer against a tort claim falling outside the scope of the customers insurance contract where a claims person  told the customer over the telephone that the insurer would take care of it and the insurer shortly thereafter hired a lawyer to represent the customer holding that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage holding an employer liable for the actions of a customer where the employer had knowledge that a male customer had previously harassed female employees other than the plaintiff and should have anticipated that the plaintiff too would become a victim holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer