and convincing evidence that “(1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) the falsity of the representation was either known to the defendant or the representation was made with reckless indifference to its truth, (3) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) the plaintiff suffered compensable injury as a result of the misrepresentation.” Hoffman, 385 Md. at 29, 867 A.2d 276 (emphasis supplied). The key question we must address is what constitutes adequate reliance. Reliance at its core is the action or inaction of a party that results from the misrepresentation of another. Nails v. S & R, Inc., 334 Md. 398, 416-17, 639 A.2d 660 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Reliance can either be direct or indirect, in
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 holding that reliance exists if the misrepresentation substantially induced the plaintiff to act holding that the essential element for determining whether or not a claim was a misrepresentation claim within the meaning of section 2680h was reliance by the plaintiff upon the false information holding that whether the plaintiffs reliance on a negligent misrepresentation is justified generally raises a question of fact holding as to a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under michigan law that the sixyear statute of limitations begins to run when the misrepresentation was perpetrated and not when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the misrepresentation