With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Camden, supra, reversed the judgment of the trial court, stating: Stearns was paid at the rate of $20. an application and had processed approximately 60 to 70 such applications for Cabana alone. He also handled similar applications for other companies, as well as his own pool company. He knew, or at the very least should have known, that the issuance of the necessary building and zoning permits was dependent upon the truth and accuracy of the facts stated in the applications * * * In spite of this Stearns did nothing to verify the truth or accuracy of the facts he certified in the applications and admittedly never gave any consideration to the consequences of his conduct. [135 N. J. Super. at 376-377] See also, Eschle v. Eastern Freight Ways, 128 N. J. Super. 299 (Law Div. 1974) (<HOLDING>); Tarasoff v. Regents of University of

A: holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case
B: holding insureds claim against insurance agent for negligent misrepresentation not preempted by erisa agent told insured he would be covered for workrelated injuries when he in fact was not
C: holding a negligent insurance agent liable to a party injured by defendants uninsured client
D: holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client
C.