for misrepresentation differs from the tort of deceit wherein plaintiff must prove intent on the part of the defendant to mislead or defraud.” Sims v. Craig, 96 N.M. at 35, 627 P.2d at 877. “The theory of liability for this tort[, negligent misrepresentation,] is one of negligence rather than of intent to mislead.” Sims v. Craig, 96 N.M. at 35, 627 P.2d at 877. The tort of negligent misrepresentation is available to a plaintiff that “ ‘cannot or does not wish to rescind, and cannot meet the proof required for the tort of fraud or deceit (as a) ... remedy for damages caused by misrepresentation short of fraud.’ ” Sims v. Craig, 96 N.M. at 35, 627 P.2d at 877 (quoting Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 41, 499 P.2d 356, 359 (Ct.App.1972)). See Sims v. Craig, 96 N.M. at 35, 627 P.2d at 877 (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS The Court does not believe that
holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract