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.
20 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Steelegreen2 sentences2024Allen v. Steele , 252 P.3d 476, 482 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 34 But even when the plaintiff sufficiently pleads a negligent misrepresentation claim, the economic loss rule may bar it . 2024Allen v. Steele , 252 P.3d 476, 482 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 34 But even when the plaintiff sufficiently pleads a negligent misrepresentation claim, the economic loss rule may bar it . | 3 | 4 |
Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.green2 sentences2016We rejected the manufacturer's argument, concluding that a negligent misrepresentation claim was not based on the contract itself-fully integrated or not-but on "principles of duty and reasonable conduct." Id. at 78 . 2013Id. ¶ 22 The supreme court did not evaluate whether the negligent misrepresentation claim was independent of a contract claim because the alleged misrepresentations related to1 claims intended to induce action—to purchase the farm equipment—not, as here, to a promise to perform duties in three service contracts. | 2 | 3 |
Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp.green2 sentences2008Litig., 154 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D.Colo.1994) (“No Colorado court has applied the fraud-on-the market theory to a negligent misrepresentation claim.”); see also Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 109 , 754 A.2d 1188, 1196 (2000) (rejecting fraud on the market as a means of proving reliance in a common law fraud action). 2008Litig., 154 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D.Colo.1994) (“No Colorado court has applied the fraud-on-the market theory to a negligent misrepresentation claim.”); see also Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 109 , 754 A.2d 1188, 1196 (2000) (rejecting fraud on the market as a means of proving reliance in a common law fraud action). | 2 | 2 |
In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigationgreen2 sentences2009Litig., 154 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D.Colo.1994) ("[njo Colorado court has applied the fraud-on-the market theory to a negligent misrepresentation claim"). *381 We are also persuaded by a variety of state cases that have similarly rejected the invitation to apply a fraud on the market theory to presume reliance and causation in common law fraud or statutory deceit lawsuits. 2008Litig., 154 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D.Colo.1994) (“No Colorado court has applied the fraud-on-the market theory to a negligent misrepresentation claim.”); see also Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 109 , 754 A.2d 1188, 1196 (2000) (rejecting fraud on the market as a means of proving reliance in a common law fraud action). | 2 | 2 |
Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridgegreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 726 (Colo. App. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Weinstein v. Colborne Foodbotics, LLC, 2013 CO 33 . | 1 | 1 |
Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson v. Central Bank Denver, N.A.green1 sentence2014Bank Denver, N.A., 892 P.2d 230, 237 (Colo.1995) (For a negligent misrepresentation claim, which similarly requires a material existing fact, "the misrepresentation must be of a material fact that presently exists or has existed in the past."). 82 Because Centura did not have a duty to disclose the fact that it would pursue payment through its lien against any settlement with the tortfeasors, the district court properly dismissed the Wainscotts' claim for - fraudulent concealment. | 1 | 1 |
Brody v. Bockgreen1 sentence2013Id. at 71 ; see also Brody, 897 P.2d at 776 (distinguishing between a promise to perform and a promise intending to induce reasonable reliance and action on the part of the promisee). 3 ¶ 23 Accepting Van Rees’s position would frustrate the purpose of the economic loss rule. | 1 | 1 |
High Country Movin', Inc. v. U.S. West Direct Co.green1 sentence2012No. 10CA1320, Aug. 4, 2011) (cert. granted May 29, 2012). 172 "[Thhe tort doctrine of negligent misrepresentation applies only when there has been a misrepresentation of an existing fact. ..." High Country Movin', Inc. v. U.S. West Direct Co., 839 P.2d 469, 471 (Colo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co.green1 sentence2010See Cyprus, 74 P.3d at 301 ; Bentley, 953 P.2d at 1300 . | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Ed-Ley Corp.green1 sentence2009See Hart v. Ed-Ley Corp., 482 P.2d 421 (Colo.App.1971) (not published pursuant to CAR. 35(F) ) (purchaser with fifteen years experience in real estate investment could not complain of inadvertent false property tax statements given to him by vendors because purchaser had full and ample opportunity to make his own independent investigation). | 1 | 1 |
White v. BDO Seidman, LLPgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo 2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo | 1 | 1 |
Mirkin v. Wassermangreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo 2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo | 1 | 1 |
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo 2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo | 1 | 1 |
Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc.green1 sentence2009See, e.g., Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568, 579-80 (1993) (doctrine cannot be applied to common law deceit and negligent misrepresentation claims in a securities action); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del.1992) (refusing to apply theory to state law fraud claims); White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 249 Ga.App. 668 , 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (2001) (presumption of reliance inapplicable to negligent misrepresentation claim); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 , 267 Ill.Dec. 14 , 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (2002) (a presumption of reliance theory wo | 1 | 1 |
BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc.green1 sentence2008See BRW, 99 P.3d at 75 ; Keller, 819 P.2d at 72 ("[A] contracting party's negligent misrepresentation of material facts prior to the execution of an agreement may provide the basis for an independent tort claim asserted by a party detrimentally relying on such negligent misrepresentations."). *392 E. | 1 | 1 |
Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Sheridan Area Water Supply Joint Powers Boardgreen1 sentence2004Scott Co., 882 P.2d at 1006 (holding that the economic loss rule barred plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation); Rissler, 929 P.2d at 1235 (holding that a construction contractor could not sue the project engineer for negligent misrepresentation because of the economic loss rule). | 1 | 1 |
Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc.green1 sentence2004It reasons that, quoting from Jardel Enter., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301, 1305 (Colo.App.1988), "Lif a negligent misrepresentation claim were dismissed only because recovery is sought for 'economic loss' and because the representations were made 'in the course of rendering a service pursuant to a contract, nothing would be left of the tort of negligent misrepresentation." Dufficy also relies on Keller v. A.O. | 1 | 1 |
Wolther v. Schaarschmidtgreen1 sentence1997See Wolther v. Schaarschmidt, 738 P.2d 25 (Colo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation Districtgreen2 sentences1989See Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, 304 Or. 151 , 742 P.2d 1176 (1987); Hall v. Romero, 141 Ariz. 120 , 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.1984). 1989See Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, 304 Or. 151 , 742 P.2d 1176 (1987); Hall v. Romero, 141 Ariz. 120 , 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc.green1 sentence1989See Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo.1987) (an action on the case includes an action for negligence). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2026Co., 2012 COA 178, ¶ 58 . ¶ 19 The Mayfields received a physical copy of their policy in 2019 when they switched from MetLife to Progressive, and again in 2020 and 2021. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Weinstein v. Colborne Foodbotics, LLC
green
1 sentence2024Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 726 (Colo. App. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Weinstein v. Colborne Foodbotics, LLC, 2013 CO 33 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
A Good Time Rental, LLC v. First American Title Agency, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013A division of this court determined that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim because it pertained to statements “directly related to performance of a contract.” Id. at 541 . ¶ 26 While A Good Time Rental pertains to statements made after the contract was signed, it is instructive because all alleged misrepresentations related directly to contractual duties. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Bentley
green
1 sentence2010See Cyprus, 74 P.3d at 301 ; Bentley, 953 P.2d at 1300 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hoang v. Arbess
green
2 sentences2010The Hoang division allowed the jury to hear a negligent misrepresentation claim against a manager who: ® "[Alpproved of, directed, actively participated in, or cooperated in the representations made to the purchasers." 80 P.3d at 869 ; and e "[O)versaw the activities of {[the builder's] sales people, ... made decisions regarding the information that was disclosed, and directed them to tell prospective buyers that as long as the homes were properly maintained, their engineering would prevent the risk of expansive soils." Id. 2010The Hoang division allowed the jury to hear a negligent misrepresentation claim against a manager who: ® "[Alpproved of, directed, actively participated in, or cooperated in the representations made to the purchasers." 80 P.3d at 869 ; and e "[O)versaw the activities of {[the builder's] sales people, ... made decisions regarding the information that was disclosed, and directed them to tell prospective buyers that as long as the homes were properly maintained, their engineering would prevent the risk of expansive soils." Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bushnell v. Cook
green
2 sentences1989While some courts have applied the fraud statute of limitations to such claims, see Luksch v. Latham, 675 F.Supp. 1198 (N.D.Cal.1987) and Bushnell v. Cook, 221 Mont. 296 , 718 P.2d 665 (1986), we are convinced that a negligent misrepresentation claim is one based upon simple negligence, and hence, at the times pertinent here, it was governed by the six-year limitation period. 1989While some courts have applied the fraud statute of limitations to such claims, see Luksch v. Latham, 675 F.Supp. 1198 (N.D.Cal.1987) and Bushnell v. Cook, 221 Mont. 296 , 718 P.2d 665 (1986), we are convinced that a negligent misrepresentation claim is one based upon simple negligence, and hence, at the times pertinent here, it was governed by the six-year limitation period. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Weigel v. Hardesty
green
2 sentences1989However, we conclude that Weigel v. Hardesty, 37 Colo.App. 541 , 549 P.2d 1335 (1976) is dispositive of the negligent misrepresentation claim. 1989However, we conclude that Weigel v. Hardesty, 37 Colo.App. 541 , 549 P.2d 1335 (1976) is dispositive of the negligent misrepresentation claim. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hall v. Romero
green
2 sentences1989See Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, 304 Or. 151 , 742 P.2d 1176 (1987); Hall v. Romero, 141 Ariz. 120 , 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.1984). 1989See Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, 304 Or. 151 , 742 P.2d 1176 (1987); Hall v. Romero, 141 Ariz. 120 , 685 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Luksch v. Latham
green
1 sentence1989While some courts have applied the fraud statute of limitations to such claims, see Luksch v. Latham, 675 F.Supp. 1198 (N.D.Cal.1987) and Bushnell v. Cook, 221 Mont. 296 , 718 P.2d 665 (1986), we are convinced that a negligent misrepresentation claim is one based upon simple negligence, and hence, at the times pertinent here, it was governed by the six-year limitation period. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Bloskas v. Murray
green
2 sentences1988We also noted Comment b to section 311 which states that these principles find particular application where "it is part of the actor's business or profession to give information upon which the safety of the recipient or a third person depends." We concluded that there was "no reason not to extend [the doctrine of negligent misrepresentation] to representations made in the course of [a physician-patient] relationship." Id. 1988We also noted Comment b to section 311 which states that these principles find particular application where “it is part of the actor’s business or profession to .give information upon which the safety of the recipient or a third person depends.” We concluded that there was “no reason not to extend [the doctrine of negligent misrepresentation] to representations made in the course of [a physician-patient] relationship.” Id. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.