The Guide is an invaluable online tool for litigation and transactional attorneys. The Guide provides for more than 70 common law causes of action:

- Each action’s elements;
- The most recent state and federal cases that cite the actions’ elements;
- The applicable statute of limitations for each action; and
- Defenses to each cause of action.
- AND, The Guide is updated annually.

FREE – No credit card or payment required. Testimonials

Misrepresentation, Negligent

1 Elements and Case Citations

“The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are:

‘1. The defendant must have made a representation as to a past or existing material fact.
2. The representation must have been untrue;
3. Regardless of his actual belief the defendant must have made the representation without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
4. The representation must have been made with the intent to induce plaintiff to rely upon it;
5. The plaintiff must have been unaware of the falsity of the representation; he must have acted in reliance upon the truth of the representation and he must have been justified in relying upon the representation;
6. And, finally, as a result of his reliance upon the truth of the representation, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.’”

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 216 Cal. App. 3d 388, 402 (1989).

“To state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, plaintiff must allege facts establishing that defendants owed him a duty to communicate accurate information. . . . California courts have recognized a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, i.e., a duty to communicate accurate information, in two circumstances. The first situation arises where providing false information poses a risk of and results in physical harm to person or property. The second situation arises where information is conveyed in a commercial setting for a business purpose.”

Friedman v. Merck & Co., 107 Cal. App. 4th 454, 477 (2003).

“The tort of negligent misrepresentation does not require scienter or intent to defraud.  It encompasses ‘[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true’ (Civ. Code, § 1710, subd. 2), and ‘[t]he positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true” (Civ. Code, § 1572, subd. (2).

Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 173-74 (2003); see Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(2) (defining “deceit” as including “[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true”).

CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court of California:  Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 173-74 (2003); Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Great American Ins. Co., 49 Cal. 4th 739, 750 n.5 (2010).

California 1st District:  National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 35, 50 (2009).

California 2d District: Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 1239 (2013).

California 3d District:  Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 1175, 1184 (2006).

California 4thDistrict:  Aspiras v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 219 Cal. App. 4th 948, 963 n.4 (2013); West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 214 Cal. App. 4th 780, 792 (2013).

California 5th District:  County of Kern v. Sparks, 149 Cal. App. 4th 11, 20 (2007).

California 6th DistrictIntrieri v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 4th 72, 85-86 (2004).

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS

United States Court of Appeal for the 9th CircuitPlatt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

Central District:  Petersen v. Allstate Indem. Co., 281 F.R.D. 413, 417 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Eastern District:  FDIC v. Varrasso, No. 2:11-2628 WBS CKD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143448, at *18 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013);   Sholiay v. Fannie Mae, No. CIV. 2:13-00958 WBS DAD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100122, at *12-13 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2013).

Northern DistrictSalcido v. Vericrest Fin. & Summit Mgmt. Co. LLC, No. C 13-3450 SBA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158460, *11 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013); Pitre v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 13-00552 WHA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71372, at *13 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2013).

Southern District:  Carpenter v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 12cv0973-LAB (BLM), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101473, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2013).

2 Issues and Defenses to Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation

(1)   Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(b)(2) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses.  See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2)   Statute of Limitations:  “[A] cause of action for negligent misrepresentation typically is subject to a two-year limitations period.”  E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services, 153 Cal. App. 4th 1308, 1316 (2007) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339)..

(3)   Pleading Requirements: “Because of the potential for false claims, we hold that a complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a [share]holder’s action should be pled with the same specificity required in a [share]holder’s action for fraud.”  Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 184 (2003) (specifically stating “we express no view on whether this pleading requirement would apply in other actions for negligent misrepresentation”).

(4)   Forbearance:  Is sufficient to fulfill the element of reliance.  Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 174 (2003).

See Chapter 48 for defenses to Negligence.