Elements of Negligent Misrepresentation in Tennessee

Disclaimer: As much as I love educating blog readers about the law, sometimes, I use this site as a notepad for myself on legal issues.

Frankly, I can’t tell you how many times I think to myself–in court–“I’ve blogged about that,” and then use the “Search” box on this blog to look a citation/issue up.

So, real quick, here’s a good guide to the elements of “negligent misrepresentation” in Tennessee, as stated in a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case,  Jerry Faerber, et. al. v. Troutman & Troutman, P.C., et. al., No. E2016-01378-COA-R3-CV, May 23, 2017.

In order to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:

  • the defendant supplied information to the plaintiff;
  • the information was false;
  • the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating the information; and
  • the plaintiff justifiably relied on the information.

See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 437 (Tenn. 2011).

Negligent misrepresentation occurs when:

  • a defendant, acting in the course of his or her business, profession, or employment, or in a transaction in which she has a pecuniary interest, supplies faulty information meant to guide another in his or her business transaction;
  • the defendant fails to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or  communicating information; and
  • the plaintiff justifiably relies upon the information provided by the defendant.

See Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1997)

“Justifiable reliance in [the] context [of negligent misrepresentation] is not blind faith.” McNeil v. Nofal, 185 S.W.3d 402, 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). The defendant is liable “only to those, whether in contractual privity or not, for whose benefit and guidance the information is supplied.” The information may be either direct or indirect. In that regard, the foreseeability of use is critical to liability. John Martin Co., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Tenn. 1991)

“[T]he usual measure of damages in a negligent misrepresentation action is the benefit of the bargain rule, that is, the difference between the actual value of the property received at the time of the making of the contract as compared to the value if the representations had been true.” Cary v. Evans, 1986 WL 6642, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2986) (citations omitted).

Ok, so this isn’t the most interesting blog post I’ve ever done, but, trust me, I’m going to search for “negligent misrepresentation” at least ten times.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s