� 1 In this appeal we consider whether evidence produced by the parties in discovery is sufficient to demonstrate a confidential relationship between the plaintiff class of Pennsylvania taxpayers (Plaintiffs) and mass-market tax preparer H&R Block, Inc., and H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc., (Block). See Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(2). The trial court determined that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a confidential relationship and so, granted summary judgment in favor of Block. We conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining the applicable legal standard for confidential relations. Additionally, we conclude that the evidence, when considered in view of the appropriate legal standard, is legally sufficient to make a prima facie showing that a confidential relationship existed between the Plaintiffs and Block during the period of time at issue in this case. We determine accordingly that the court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment and we reverse the court’s order.
� 2 Between 1990 and 1993, Plaintiffs Sandra J. Basile and Laura Clavin retained Block to prepare their federal and state income tax returns and obtain tax refunds from the Internal Revenue Service. Subsequently, Basile and Clavin (Plaintiffs) filed a class action complaint, alleging that during the tax preparation process Block enlisted their participation in its “Rapid Refund” service and did not disclose that their “rapid refunds” were, in fact, short-term, high-interest loans (loans) secured by the taxpayers’ pending refunds. Plaintiffs alleged further that Block shared in the interest and fees collected on the loans but did not apprise them of its financial interest. The Plaintiffs contend, accordingly, that Block secured their participation in the “Rapid Refund” service on the basis of false pretense, as a consequence of which they paid interest ranging from a low of 32% to a high of 151%, based on the amount of the loan. Accordingly, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for Violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. � 1638; Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. �� 201-2 through 201-9.2 (UTPCPL); Violation of the Delaware Legal Rate of Interest, 6 Del. Code � 2301(a); and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In support of their assertion of fiduciary duty, Plaintiffs alleged that their relationship with Block was confidential in nature, and/or that Block had acted as an agent in preparing their tax returns and obtaining their “rapid refunds.”
� 3 Subsequently, Block and co-defendant Mellon Bank, N.A., served notice of removal of the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (U.S.D.C.) on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction. The federal court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Truth in Lending and interest rate claims and remanded the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for disposition of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 194, 199 (E.D.Pa. 1995) (Basile I). In state court, the Plaintiffs requested class action certification. The court denied certification of Plaintiffs’ fraud, misrepresentation, and UTPCPL claims, but granted certification of their claim of breach of fiduciary duty. The court delineated the class as:
