Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. SBAV, LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-710 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    This tort requires an affirmative false statement; a mere omission will not suffice. Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp., 2009 WL 1856633 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2009); Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Indus. Risk Ins., 348 S.W.3d 729, 744-45 (Ky. 2011). SBAV has pled numerous misstatements, as well as Defendants' "fail[ure] to exercise reasonable care or competence."

  2. Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries

    730 F. Supp. 2d 683 (W.D. Ky. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Finding defendant had pecuniary interest in its sale of aircraft to plaintiff when it allegedly misrepresented the state of engine manufacturer's finances

    Diamond had a pecuniary interest (if perhaps an indirect one) in Morris buying one of its planes. As to the requirement that the defendant have provided false information, this tort is importantly different from an allegation of fraud: while the "false information" must be an affirmative false statement (and not a mere omission), Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54614 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2009), it is not limited to representations of fact. The rule "applies not only to information given as to the existence of facts but also to an opinion given upon facts equally well known to both the supplier and the recipient."

  3. Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-644-S (W.D. Ky. Jul. 23, 2010)

    Diamond had a pecuniary interest (if perhaps an indirect one) in Morris buying one of its planes. As to the requirement that the defendant have provided false information, this tort is importantly different from an allegation of fraud: while the "false information" must be an affirmative false statement (and not a mere omission), Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54614 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2009), it is not limited to representations of fact. The rule "applies not only to information given as to the existence of facts but also to an opinion given upon facts equally well known to both the supplier and the recipient."

  4. Brantley v. Harris

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-30-S (W.D. Ky. Jul. 20, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    This tort requires an affirmative false statement; a mere omission will not do. Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54614 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2009). See also H.C. Smith Invs., L.L.C. v. Outboard Marine Co., 377 F.3d 645, 652-53 (6th Cir. 2004) (suggesting this point though not expressing it outright).

  5. Republic Bank Trust Co. v. Bear, Stearns Co.

    707 F. Supp. 2d 702 (W.D. Ky. 2010)   Cited 41 times
    Applying Kentucky law, which, like Nevada, "follows the Restatement" for negligent misrepresentation

    Presnell Constr. Managers, Inc. v. EH Constr., LLC, 134 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Ky. 2004); Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 552(1). Importantly, this tort requires an affirmative false statement; a mere omission will not do. Associated Warehousing, Inc. v. Banterra Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54614 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2009); In re Nat'l Century Fin. Enters., 580 F. Supp. 2d 630, 646 (S.D. Ohio 2008) ( citing Leal v. Holtvogt, 702 N.E.2d 1246, 1261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)); Flanagan Lieberman Hoffman Swaim v. Transamerica Life Annuity Co., 228 F. Supp. 2d 830, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2002)). See also H.C. Smith Invs., L.L.C. v. Outboard Marine Co., 377 F.3d 645, 652-53 (6th Cir. 2004) (suggesting this point though not expressing it outright). Consequently we can eliminate immediately the possibility of grounding this tort in any of the omissions alleged in paragraph 32 of the complaint.