What is the test for determining whether a construction lender has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the buyers of a home from structural defects?

The homeowners in Connor brought suit seeking rescission or damages from the various parties involved in the tract development. (Connor, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 856, 73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609.) The homeowners sought to recover damages in negligence against the savings and loan association which had not only made the necessary construction loans to the developer, but had become an active participant in the home construction enterprise. (Id. at p. 864, 73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609.) In holding that the construction lender was under a duty to the buyers of the homes to exercise reasonable care to protect them from damages caused by major structural defects, and that "[t]he admonitory policy of the law of torts calls for the imposition of liability on [the lender] for its conduct in this case," the court in Connor applied the six-factor balancing test announced in Biakanja v. Irving, supra, 49 Cal.2d at page 650, 320 P.2d 16, the same balancing test the court had previously applied in Sabella. (Connor, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 865-867, 73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609.)