negligent misrepresentation claim in Minnesota

2016Compare Williams, 820 N.W.2d at 815 (articulating elements of a negligent-misrepresentation claim), with Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod.

2016In fact, we specifically concluded that a negligent misrepresentation claim, brought by a candidate for an assistant basketball coach position at the University of Minnesota, was not subject to certiorari review “because it is separate and distinct from the University’s decision not to hire him.” Id. at 815 (emphasis added).

2012See id. at 122, 248 N.W.2d at 299 ; Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Minn.1986).

2012CIVJIG 57.20; see Bonhiver, 311 Minn. at 121-22 , 248 N.W.2d at 298-99 .

2012Id. at 652-58 .

2012The court of appeals held that the negligent misrepresentation claim was not “premised on an equitable or legal claim to employment,” and because different considerations were at issue with that claim, judicial review would “not intrude substantially on or challenge the university’s internal decision-making process.” Id. at 652 .

2026See Greuling, 690 N.W.2d at 760 (stating that for a negligent misrepresentation claim, justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, and only “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a contrary conclusion”); Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 29 (Minn. 2011) (stating that in negligence actions “[w]hether a defendant’s chosen course of action satisfies the duty of reasonable care is a question for the jury”).

2026Negligent misrepresentation For a negligent misrepresentation claim, justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, and only “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a contrary conclusion.” Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 690 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Minn. App. 2005). a.

2026See Greuling, 690 N.W.2d at 760 (stating that for a negligent misrepresentation claim, justifiable reliance is typically a fact question for a jury, and only “becomes a question of law if there is no evidence supporting a contrary conclusion”); Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 29 (Minn. 2011) (stating that in negligence actions “[w]hether a defendant’s chosen course of action satisfies the duty of reasonable care is a question for the jury”).

2015In a negligent- misrepresentation claim, it is essential “that the alleged misrepresenter owes a duty of care to the person to whom they are providing information.” Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc., 605 N.W.2d 418, 424 (Minn. App. 2000).

2014U.S. Bank v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 802 N.W.2d 363, 373 (Minn. 2011). 6 To prevail on a negligent misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff must establish: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant supplies false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information.

2014For example, in Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of N. Am., 511 N.W.2d 6, 8-9 (Minn.1994), after rejecting the district court’s legal conclusion that a question in the insurance application was ambiguous, we determined that whether the insured's answers were willfully false or intentionally misleading or merely inaccurate was a question of fact.

2012In City of North Oaks v. Sarpal, we held that neither erroneous government action nor “a simple mistake by a government official” is wrongful government conduct. 797 N.W.2d 18, 25-26 (Minn.2011).

2012See id. .

2012See id. at 122, 248 N.W.2d at 299 ; Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Minn.1986).

2008McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 726 N.W.2d 108, 120-21 (Minn.App.2007).

2007Eustis v. David Agency, Inc., 417 N.W.2d 295, 298 (Minn.App.1987).