v. First S. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 414 So.2d 64, 71 (Ala.1982); Lloyd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 176 Ariz. 247, 860 P.2d 1300, 1303 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F.Supp. 1130, 1143-44 (N.D.Cal.1997); Blackmon v. Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Weber & Sparrow, 419 So.2d 405, 406 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (per curiam); Runde v. Vigus Realty, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 572, 575 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Schwartz v. Greenfield, Stein & Weisinger, 90 Misc.2d 882, 396 N.Y.S.2d 582, 584-85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1977). 10 . In Brunette, for example, the duty assumed gratuitously by the defendant to ensure the plaintiffs "would receive a clear title” came on top of the duties spelled out in the land sale contract. See Brunelle, 64 A.2d at 317. See also, e.g., Rudolph, 414 So.2d at 71 (<HOLDING>); Runde, 617 N.E.2d at 573, 575-76 (holding
recognizing that the decision to undertake a project or how to design the project may be immunized as the exercise of a legislative or quasilegislative function holding that a construction lender may voluntarily assume a duty to inspect the construction project for the borrowers benefit in addition to the lenders independent contractual right to inspect the project for its own exclusive benefit holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed holding that a bank had no duty to inform other lenders of its borrowers financial problems even though those other lenders funds were used to pay off the borrowers debt to the bank