the policy, FLA’s negligent misrepresentation action fails under section 552. The contrary opinions expressed in FLA’s expert’s affidavit cannot dictate a different result. FLA’s expert opined that by issuing an errors and omissions policy, “TAIC was representing to FLA and other similarly situated companies that WAG was in compliance with all legal req onal liability insurer, like TAIC, “knows or should know that third parties rely on the existence of error and omission coverage,” and that “TAIC should have known that WAG was not licensed and was not authorized under Florida law to transact insurance business,” are insufficient to create a legal duty or issue of fact to preclude summary judgment. See Reimsnyder v. Southtrust Bank, N.A., 846 So.2d 1264, 1265-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Eguia v. The Landings, Ltd., 507 So.2d 134,
holding that expert testimony as to what a business should know about its customers does not create a duty under the law or an issue of fact precluding summary judgment holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment