negligent misrepresentation claim in Washington

2025To the contrary, the court explained that comparative fault principles apply after the plaintiff has established that element: “[W]here a plaintiff reasonably reposes some trust in a misrepresentation . . . the automatic preclusion of a negligent misrepresentation claim on the grounds that the plaintiff could have done something more would be the sort of ‘harsh result’ that the comparative fault statute sought to forestall in tort claims.” Id. at 551 (quoting ESCA, 135 Wn.2d at 830 ) (emphasis added).

2015Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.,23 a developer brought a negligent misrepresentation claim against an engineering firm after delays and 17 31 C.F.R. § 10.34 (d); Treasury Department Circular No. 230 § 10.34(d). 18 135 Wn.2d 820 , 959 P.2d 651 (1998). 19 ESCA, 135 Wn.2d at 823-24 . 20 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat825. 21 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat825. 22 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat828. 23 179 Wn.2d 84, 86-87 , 312 P.3d 620 (2013). -13- No. 69701-3-1 (consol. with No. 70190-8-l)/14 cost overruns contributed to the developer's loss of the property in foreclosure.

2025Id. at 830, 959 P.2d 651 .

2015Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.,23 a developer brought a negligent misrepresentation claim against an engineering firm after delays and 17 31 C.F.R. § 10.34 (d); Treasury Department Circular No. 230 § 10.34(d). 18 135 Wn.2d 820 , 959 P.2d 651 (1998). 19 ESCA, 135 Wn.2d at 823-24 . 20 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat825. 21 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat825. 22 ESCA, 135Wn.2dat828. 23 179 Wn.2d 84, 86-87 , 312 P.3d 620 (2013). -13- No. 69701-3-1 (consol. with No. 70190-8-l)/14 cost overruns contributed to the developer's loss of the property in foreclosure.

2025The trial court also noted, as Ross confirms, id., that these elements must be proven “by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." The trial court found (and Madero does not dispute on appeal) that Fullwiler satisfied the first four elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

2010We note that our Supreme Court did not contradict itself when it remanded Ross v. Kirner, 162 Wn.2d 493 , 172 P.3d 701 (2007), a case involving a negligent misrepresentation claim, after its decision in Alejandre.

2025And following Baik, the court reiterated in Ross that “the plaintiff must not have been negligent in relying on the representation” to prove a negligent misrepresentation claim. 162 Wn.2d at 500 .

2010We note that our Supreme Court did not contradict itself when it remanded Ross v. Kirner, 162 Wn.2d 493 , 172 P.3d 701 (2007), a case involving a negligent misrepresentation claim, after its decision in Alejandre.

2013In Jackowski v. Borchelt, 174 Wn.2d 720, 738 , 278 P.3d 1100 (2012), we noted that, like a claim for fraud, a negligent misrepresentation claim might exist “to the extent the duty to not commit negligent misrepresentation is independent of the contract.” 4 This rule is narrower than the rule adopted in some jurisdictions where the duty to avoid negligent misrepresentation always arises independently of the contract.

2013In Jackowski v. Borchelt, 174 Wn.2d 720, 738 , 278 P.3d 1100 (2012), we noted that, like a claim for fraud, a negligent misrepresentation claim might exist “to the extent the duty to not commit negligent misrepresentation is independent of the contract.” 4 This rule is narrower than the rule adopted in some jurisdictions where the duty to avoid negligent misrepresentation always arises independently of the contract.

2019Bloor involved a negligent misrepresentation claim based on a broker’s failure to disclose methamphetamine contamination in a residence. 143 Wn.

2015The two cases WGW cites provide limited support for this interpretation of "readily." The first, Bloor. involved a negligent misrepresentation claim based on a broker's failure to disclose material information under RCW 18.86.030. 143 Wn.

2013Inv., LLC v. Port of Tacoma, 173 Wn.App. 1,24 , 292 P.3d 833 (2013) (holding that the independent duty doctrine did not bar a property owner’s negligent misrepresentation claim against a potential buyer of property when the trial court made no findings regarding whether the buyer’s alleged duties arose independently of the contract).

2013Inv., LLC v. Port of Tacoma, 173 Wn.App. 1,24 , 292 P.3d 833 (2013) (holding that the independent duty doctrine did not bar a property owner’s negligent misrepresentation claim against a potential buyer of property when the trial court made no findings regarding whether the buyer’s alleged duties arose independently of the contract).

2010App. 662, 671 , 191 P.3d 946 (2008) (holding that the economic loss rule did not bar malicious mischief and general negligence claims in a home purchaser’s lawsuit that did not involve any negligent misrepresentation claims), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1049 (2009); Stieneke v. Russi, 145 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010Hisle, 151 Wash.2d at 860 , 93 P.3d 108 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 61 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). *653 Russell argues that the Borishes failed to develop genuine issues of material fact for most of the required elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

2010Hisle, 151 Wash.2d at 860 , 93 P.3d 108 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 61 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). *653 Russell argues that the Borishes failed to develop genuine issues of material fact for most of the required elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

2010App. 193, 207 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008) (affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because “the homeowners here have failed to articulate a cognizable negligent misrepresentation claim” and not because of an application of the economic loss rule and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim based on the economic loss rule), review granted in part and dismissed, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); King v. Rice, 146 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a homebuyer’s negligent representation claim by applying the economic loss rule in the presence of a contract and distinguishing Alejandre when reversing summary judgment against a real estate agent and his firm because of an improper application of the economic loss rule thát precluded a professional malpractice claim when the agent and firm’s duties were rooted in statutes and the common law and not the contract), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1001 (2010); Cox v. O’Brien, 150 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010To the extent that the reliance element of fraudulent misrepresentation and the reliance element of negligent misrepresentation are coexistent, the Borishes are collaterally stopped from relitigating this claim and summary judgment is appropriate on these grounds as well. 6 See Mead v. Park Place Props., 37 Wn.

2010To the extent that the reliance element of fraudulent misrepresentation and the reliance element of negligent misrepresentation are coexistent, the Borishes are collaterally stopped from relitigating this claim and summary judgment is appropriate on these grounds as well. [6] See Mead v. Park Place Properties, 37 Wash.App. 403, 405 , 681 P.2d 256 (collateral estoppel prevents a second litigation of the same issue "even if presented in a different claim or cause of action"), review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1010 (1984).

2010Hisle, 151 Wn.2d at 860 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989).

2010Hisle, 151 Wash.2d at 860 , 93 P.3d 108 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 61 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). *653 Russell argues that the Borishes failed to develop genuine issues of material fact for most of the required elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

2010App. 193, 207 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008) (affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because “the homeowners here have failed to articulate a cognizable negligent misrepresentation claim” and not because of an application of the economic loss rule and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim based on the economic loss rule), review granted in part and dismissed, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); King v. Rice, 146 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a homebuyer’s negligent representation claim by applying the economic loss rule in the presence of a contract and distinguishing Alejandre when reversing summary judgment against a real estate agent and his firm because of an improper application of the economic loss rule thát precluded a professional malpractice claim when the agent and firm’s duties were rooted in statutes and the common law and not the contract), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1001 (2010); Cox v. O’Brien, 150 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 662, 671 , 191 P.3d 946 (2008) (holding that the economic loss rule did not bar malicious mischief and general negligence claims in a home purchaser’s lawsuit that did not involve any negligent misrepresentation claims), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1049 (2009); Stieneke v. Russi, 145 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 662, 671 , 191 P.3d 946 (2008) (holding that the economic loss rule did not bar malicious mischief and general negligence claims in a home purchaser’s lawsuit that did not involve any negligent misrepresentation claims), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1049 (2009); Stieneke v. Russi, 145 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 193, 207 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008) (affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because “the homeowners here have failed to articulate a cognizable negligent misrepresentation claim” and not because of an application of the economic loss rule and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim based on the economic loss rule), review granted in part and dismissed, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); King v. Rice, 146 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a homebuyer’s negligent representation claim by applying the economic loss rule in the presence of a contract and distinguishing Alejandre when reversing summary judgment against a real estate agent and his firm because of an improper application of the economic loss rule thát precluded a professional malpractice claim when the agent and firm’s duties were rooted in statutes and the common law and not the contract), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1001 (2010); Cox v. O’Brien, 150 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010App. at 578, 589-91 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wn.

2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli

2010Hisle, 151 Wn.2d at 860 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989).

2010Hisle, 151 Wash.2d at 860 , 93 P.3d 108 ; LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 200-01 , 770 P.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 61 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). *653 Russell argues that the Borishes failed to develop genuine issues of material fact for most of the required elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

2009Co., 130 Wash.App. 74, 84-85 , 121 P.3d 1204 (2005). ¶ 37 The court's findings and conclusions related to the negligent misrepresentation claim focus on the information that was provided to the Petersons.

2009App. 74, 84-85 , 121 P.3d 1204 (2005). ¶37 The court’s findings and conclusions related to the negligent misrepresentation claim focus on the information that was provided to the Petersons.