of the nonmoving party. ¶ 51. For the above reasons, I dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court. 10 The provisions of the Third Restatement cited in this opinion were approved by the American Law Institute in 2012. 89th Annual Meeting: 2012 Proceedings, Discussion of Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm, 89 A.L.I. Proc. 22, 46-47 (2012). The A.L.I. states that “[o]nce it is approved by the membership at an Annual Meeting, a Tentative Draft . . . represents the most current statement of the American Law Institute’s position on the subject and may be cited in opinions or briefs . . . until the official text is published.” Am. Law Inst., Overview, Project Development, http://www. ns Bank & Trust Co., 812 F. Supp. 738, 742-43 (W.D. Ky. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Brinkman v. Barrett Kays & Assocs., 575
holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations holding that whether the plaintiffs reliance on a negligent misrepresentation is justified generally raises a question of fact holding that reliance exists if the misrepresentation substantially induced the plaintiff to act holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant