Negligent misrepresentation differs from intentional misrepresentation on at least two elements.  For fraud, the defendant must know the representation is false; whereas, for negligent misrepresentation, lack of a reasonable basis to believe the representation is true will suffice.  Also, for negligent misrepresentation, no showing of intent to deceive is required, just an intent to induce reliance on the misstated fact.  Here, defendant doctor told plaintiff patient that one procedure to correct her drooping brow and eyelid would not be covered by insurance, while the one she ultimately carried out would be covered by insurance.  That representation was false and defendant had no reasonable basis for it as defendant didn’t even know what insurance coverage plaintiff had, and some medical insurance covered the first procedure (a brow lift) if needed to correct a medical condition.  Furthermore, there was ample evidence that defendant intended plaintiff to rely on that representation as plaintiff had said she could not afford an operation not covered by insurance.  So the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim.