With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exception did not apply to an architectural malpractice claim because “the information supplied by the architect is transformed into the building itself.” It is widely acknowledged that appraisers are an “easy case” in terms of the information provider exception because they are clearly in the business of providing information for the guidance of others; in fact, that is all their business consists of. See, e.g., Olson v. Hunter’s Point Homes, LLC, 357 Ill.Dec. 697, 964 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ill.App.Ct. 5th Dist.2012) (“real estate brokers can be said to be in the business of supplying information to others in their business transactions and, thus, can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation”); Kelley v. Carbone, 361 Ill. App.3d 477, 297 Ill.Dec. 355, 837 N.E.2d 438, 441 (2d Dist.2005) (<HOLDING>); Richmond v. Blair, 142 Ill. App.3d 251, 94

A: holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient
B: holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false
C: holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa
D: holding that defendant appraisers could be liable for negligent misrepresentation under the information provider exception to the moorman doctrine
D.