reliance on the misrepresentation. See Souran v. Travelers Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 1497, 1503 (11th Cir.1993) (citing Horn v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 607 So.2d 423, 427 (1992)). As with the fraud count, CS and TS argue that MeterLogic has not stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation because it has not alleged it took any action in reliance on their statements. A plaintiff is not required to describe the action it took with a high degree of specificity. It is enough for a plaintiff to allege, as Me-terLogic has, that the defendant was aware the plaintiff would rely on the defendant’s representations and that the plaintiff did in fact rely on them by, for example, entering into a contract with the defendant. See Florida Women’s Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Sultan, 656 So.2d 931, 933 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Under its negligent misrepresentation count,
holding that allegation that plaintiff relied on defendants representation by entering into a lease with it stated valid cause of action for negligent misrepresentation holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in houston texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute for plaintiffs claims of various forms of fraud and negligent misrepresentation holding that continuing course of negligent representation postpones accrual of cause of action until that representation is terminated unless plaintiff earlier discovers injury or fraudulent concealment holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void