Yes. I do think the judge reached the right conclusion, but probably not quite for the right reason. Negligent misrepresentation is a little more broad than this court seems to have applied it. It seemed to rely on the fact that a one word email was not an abstract of title. While I agree, I don't think it really has to be an abstract for someone to be liable for negligent misrepresentation.
Negligent Misrepresentation: One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.
In this case, Chicago Title was clearly in the business of supplying this type of information and it certainly knew that Soifer was relying on its information in his business transactions. I don't think it matters what form that information takes, whether it is a full abstract or a one-word email.
However, I believe that what was missing here was consideration - Soifer did not pay for the service. Thus, there was no contract and, as a result, no duty owed to him by Chicago Title. The court did seem to find that a promise of future work was not really sufficient consideration, though it didn't fully analyze the consideration issue.
Had Soifer paid Chicago Title for preparing those one-word emails, I think he would have had a much stronger case.
Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE
to post a reply:
login - or -
register