be given effect, and there is no room for construction.” James v. Todd, 267 Ala. 495, 504, 103 So.2d 19, 27 (1957); State v. Bay Towing & Dredging Co., 264 Ala. 187, 189, 85 So.2d 890, 892 (1955). Justice See’s special concurrence is premised on the theory of the exclusivity of a remedy in contract and thus the unavailability of a remedy in tort. The special concurrence asserts that the Larkins have failed to plead any claims that indicate that the Orkin defendants owed them a duty. However, this Court has recognized liability of a person in tort for furnishing information for the guidance of others in their business transactions when that person can reasonably anticipate that a third party would rely on that information. See Fisher v. Comer Plantation, Inc., 772 So.2d 455 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the analysis of the Larkins’
holding that no direct contractual relationship is required between the alleged tortfeasor and the person who justifiably relies to his or her detriment on the alleged tortfeasors representations because under restatement second of torts section 533 1977 hereinafter restatement persons who fraudulently misrepresent the truth can be held liable to third parties if they have a reason to expect their misrepresentation will be communicated to third parties recognizing the adoption of the restatement second of torts  552 1977 in boykin v arthur andersen  co 639 so2d 504 ala1994 and holding that a real estate appraiser had a duty to third parties that the appraiser intended to influence and to third parties that the appraiser knew his client intended to influence by means of the appraisal holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties