Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
against the seller’s broker. Id. at 1297. In recognizing the limits of the economic loss doctrine in Moransais, the Florida supreme court favorably cited PK Ventures and stated that the court has “declined to extend the economic loss rule to actions based on ... negligent misrepresentation.” Moransais, 744 So.2d at 981; see Perfumeria, 231 F.Supp.2d at 1223 (explaining that the Florida supreme court has refused to apply the economic loss doctrine to the category of cases involving negligent misrepresentation); Stone Throw Condo. Assoc., Inc. v. Sand Cove Apartments, Inc., 749 So.2d 520 (Fl.2d DCA 1999)(reversing trial court’s decision to dismiss negligent misrepresentation claim based upon economic loss doctrine); see also Williams v. Bear Steams & Co., 725 So.2d 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Burton v. Linotype Co., 556 So.2d 1126, 1128
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the economic loss rale did not bar banks claim against mortgagors attorney for negligent misrepresentation where there was no contract between the bank and the attorney
B. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient
C. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties
D. holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract
E. holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.