Austin v. Ettl

¶1 Matthew Austin appeals the trial court’s CR 12(b)(6) dismissal of his negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims against Lance and Mandy Ettl arising from a dispute over the Ettls’ disclosure of potential local improvement districts (LIDs)1 on the property they sold to Austin.2 Austin argues that his negligent misrepresentation claim for damages based on the Ettls’ failure to disclose the cost of the proposed LIDs may proceed based on the independent duty doctrine and *85that both claims should have survived the Ettls’ CR 12(b)(6) motion. We disagree.

¶2 Although the parties’…