Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural Studiogreen2 sentences2018However, because Bilt-Rite stated a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation under Section 552, which did not require privity, "logic dictate[d] that Bilt-Rite not be barred from recovering the damages it incurred, if proven." 19 Id. 2018It thus "sued TAS on a theory of negligent misrepresentation under Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, [ 17 ] claiming that TAS's specifications were false and/or misleading, and seeking damages for its increased construction costs." Id. at 272-73 . | 1 | 5 |
Kirschner v. K & L Gates LLPgreen1 sentence2017In Kirschner v. K&L Gates LLP, 46 A.3d 737, 741 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 65 A.3d 414 (Pa. 2013), a bankruptcy trustee for a bottle beverage corporation brought an action against the retained law firm and an investigating fraud company, claiming, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation pursuant to Section 552 and Bilt-Rite. | 1 | 1 |
Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2009Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia *842 Gas Company of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111, 115-16 (Pa.Super.2007) ( en banc ) (citing Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454 , 866 A.2d 270 (2005) (finding negligent misrepresentation claim against architect for economic loss viable under § 552)). 2009Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111, 115-16 (Pa.Super.2007) (en banc ) (citing Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454 , 866 A.2d 270 (2005) (finding negligent misrepresentation claim against architect for economic loss viable under § 552)). | 1 | 1 |
Bolus v. United Penn Bankgreen2 sentences2004See e.g., Baker v. Cambridge Chase Inc., 725 A.2d 757, 770 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 560 Pa. 716 , 745 A.2d 1216 (1999) (allegations that bank, as owner of townhouse which was conveyed to plaintiffs by a developer, failed to disclose the fact that the developer no longer owned the property, were sufficient to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation under section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts); Bolus v. United Penn Bank, 363 Pa. Super. 247, 262-65 , 525 A.2d 1215,1223-24 (1987), appeal denied, 518 Pa. 627 , 541 A.2d 1138 (1988) (bank held liable for negligent misreprese 2004See e.g., Baker v. Cambridge Chase Inc., 725 A.2d 757, 770 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 560 Pa. 716 , 745 A.2d 1216 (1999) (allegations that bank, as owner of townhouse which was conveyed to plaintiffs by a developer, failed to disclose the fact that the developer no longer owned the property, were sufficient to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation under section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts); Bolus v. United Penn Bank, 363 Pa. Super. 247, 262-65 , 525 A.2d 1215,1223-24 (1987), appeal denied, 518 Pa. 627 , 541 A.2d 1138 (1988) (bank held liable for negligent misreprese | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Cambridge Chase, Inc.green1 sentence2004See e.g., Baker v. Cambridge Chase Inc., 725 A.2d 757, 770 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 560 Pa. 716 , 745 A.2d 1216 (1999) (allegations that bank, as owner of townhouse which was conveyed to plaintiffs by a developer, failed to disclose the fact that the developer no longer owned the property, were sufficient to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation under section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts); Bolus v. United Penn Bank, 363 Pa. Super. 247, 262-65 , 525 A.2d 1215,1223-24 (1987), appeal denied, 518 Pa. 627 , 541 A.2d 1138 (1988) (bank held liable for negligent misreprese | 1 | 1 |
Woodward v. Dietrichgreen2 sentences2003See Woodward v. Dietrich, 378 Pa.Super. 111 , 548 A.2d 301, 308 (1988). 2003See Woodward v. Dietrich, 378 Pa.Super. 111 , 548 A.2d 301, 308 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co.
green
2 sentences2012In Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania, 604 Pa. 50 , 985 A.2d 840 (2009), acontractor that sustained economic loss as a result of a utility’s failure to properly mark the location of underground gas lines sued the utility for negligent misrepresentation after the contractor struck certain gas lines and suffered economic losses due to construction delays. 2012In Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania, 604 Pa. 50 , 985 A.2d 840 (2009), acontractor that sustained economic loss as a result of a utility’s failure to properly mark the location of underground gas lines sued the utility for negligent misrepresentation after the contractor struck certain gas lines and suffered economic losses due to construction delays. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
John Martin Co. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 463 S.E.2d 85 (1995) (economic loss doctrine does not bar contractor from recovering, absent privity, against engineer on theory of negligent misrepresentation in design of project); John Martin Co., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.1991) (Section 552 governs negligent misrepresentation claim by subcontractor that construction manager negligently supplied information intended for guidance of others so long as use of information was foreseeable; no privity required). 2005Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 463 S.E.2d 85 (1995) (economic loss doctrine does not bar contractor from recovering, absent privity, against engineer on theory of negligent misrepresentation in design of project); John Martin Co., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.1991) (Section 552 governs negligent misrepresentation claim by subcontractor that construction manager negligently supplied information intended for guidance of others so long as use of information was foreseeable; no privity required). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tommy L. Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 463 S.E.2d 85 (1995) (economic loss doctrine does not bar contractor from recovering, absent privity, against engineer on theory of negligent misrepresentation in design of project); John Martin Co., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.1991) (Section 552 governs negligent misrepresentation claim by subcontractor that construction manager negligently supplied information intended for guidance of others so long as use of information was foreseeable; no privity required). 2005Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 463 S.E.2d 85 (1995) (economic loss doctrine does not bar contractor from recovering, absent privity, against engineer on theory of negligent misrepresentation in design of project); John Martin Co., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.1991) (Section 552 governs negligent misrepresentation claim by subcontractor that construction manager negligently supplied information intended for guidance of others so long as use of information was foreseeable; no privity required). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sevin v. Kelshaw
green
1 sentence1999Id., 611 A.2d at 1238 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mill-Mar, Inc. v. Statham
green
2 sentences1988Rather, we interpret the reference as relating only to the general discussion of the erosion of the privity requirement in Mill-Mar, Inc., 278 Pa.Superior Ct. at 299-300, 420 A.2d at 550-51 . [7] A result is deemed to be "intended" if "the actor either acts with the desire to cause it, or acts believing that there is a substantial certainty that the result would follow from his conduct." Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 531, comment c. [8] "Reason to expect" is defined in Restatement of Torts 2d Section 531, Comment d as follows: d. `Reason to expect.' One has reason to expect a result if he h 1988Rather, we interpret the reference as relating only to the general discussion of the erosion of the privity requirement in Mill-Mar, Inc., 278 Pa.Superior Ct. at 299-300, 420 A.2d at 550-51 . . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.