duty of due care independent from the parties’ contractual relationship. Such tort duties of care with respect to representations are imposed by courts to protect a peculiarly vulnerable party. In particular, such duties are imposed in the context of a patient’s or client’s dealings with a professional in whom one places a great degree of personal trust and confidence—such as a physician, an attorney, an architect or a public accountant. Jacques, 515 A.2d at 763. No such relationship of special trust exists here. Nor is INTELSAT an unsophisticated consumer, unfamiliar with the subject matter of the contract, who relied on the representations of someone holding himself or herself out as possessing special expertise. See Ward Development Co. v. Ingrao, 63 Md.App. 645, 493 A.2d 421 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the contract itself imposes no
recognizing that city may be liable for negligent maintenance of sewer system even though doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was inapplicable holding housing developer liable for negligent misrepresentation for grossly inaccurate estimate of water and sewer connection charges given to prospective homeowners who had no means of checking accuracy holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding that a city was equitably estopped from denying the accuracy of blueprints and specifications given to a party who had been contracted to build a sewer for the city holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient