Simko v. P.V.M. Associates, Inc. (526 So. 2d 218, 1988)

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the entry of summary judgment for the appellee because we do not believe the evidence has been sufficiently developed to determine whether the appel-lee is entitled to immunity under the line of cases exemplified by Booher v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 468 So.2d 985 (Fla.1985), or barred from asserting such immunity under the line of cases exemplified by Noel v. E. Ecker & Co., 445 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.