With regard to the first argument, plaintiffs respond that they need not show actual, subjective intent. Instead, fraud can occur when a misrepresentation is made, for example, “in conscious ignorance of the truth,” B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa.Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313, 316 (Pa.Super.Ct.1991), or by one who “had means of knowledge from which they were bound to ascertain the truth before making the misrepresentation,” La Course v. Kiesel, 366 Pa. 385, 77 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa.1951). The Court agrees.