Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Burlington Insurance v. Artisan Mechanical, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 7, 2010No. C-081280Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCunningham, Judge

{¶ 24} I agree with my colleagues that CRC was entitled to summary judgment on Artisan’s negligent-misrepresentation claim, but for a different reason than the one advanced by the majority. And I would affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for both Wells Fargo and CRC on the basis that Artisan failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to *568consider on the existence of the necessary elements of its negligent-misrepresentation claim against each of them.

{¶ 25} Artisan’s negligent-misrepresentation claim was based upon 3 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Haddon View Investment Co. v. CoopersOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Floor Craft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Parma Community General Hospital Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Corporex Development & Construction Management, Inc. v. Shook, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. v. First Union Management, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Tibbs v. National Homes Construction Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API