Opinion ID: 31600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Midland Bus. Loans, Inc., 88 F.3d 347, 358,

Text: CrossRoad argues that defendants are liable 360 (5th Cir. 1996). “The justifiableness of for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in the reliance is judged in light of the plaintiff’s connection with various statements, including intelligence and experience.” Scottish projections that Union Pacific’s merger with Heritable Trust, PLC v. Peat Marwick Main & Southern Pacific Railroad would benefit rail Co., 81 F.3d 606, 615 (5th Cir. 1996). customers by improving transit times and re- CrossRoad is a sophisticated, long-time liability of service generally, and additional participant in the freight shipping industry and representations that the bottlenecking problem cannot demonstrate that its reliance on Union Union Pacific was experiencing would not Pacific’s optimistic projections was justifiable.5 have a negative impact on CrossRoad’s shipments. Claims of negligent As here hereinabove explained, and as furmisrepresentation, however, must be based on ther explicated by the district court in its copast or present facts.3 Consequently, a gent opinion entered June 18, 2002, the plaintiff may not base such claims on summary judgment is AFFIRMED. statements regarding future events.4 Likewise, with some exceptions, an action for fraud cannot arise from expressions of opinion or predictions about the future. Bryant v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., 821 S.W.2d 187, 190 (Tex. App.SSHouston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. denied). CrossRoad contends that the disputed statements concerning Union Pacific’s expected performance were expressions of present facts, because Union Pacific should 3 Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138, 5 141 (Tex. App.SSHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. See Clardy, 88 F.3d at 358, 360 (stating that denied); Key v. Pierce, 8 S.W.3d 704, 709 (Tex. sophisticated plaintiffs with industry experience are App.SSFort Worth 1999, pet. denied). unable, as a matter of law, to prove justifiable reliance); cf. Presidio Enters., Inc. v. Warner 4 Allied Vista, 987 S.W.2d at 141 (“[T]he sort Bros. Distrib. Corp., 784 F.2d 674, 682 (noting of ‘false information’ contemplated in a negligent that plaintiffs were experienced executives who misrepresentation case is a misstatement of existing could not have reasonably relied on fact, not a promise of future conduct.”). misrepresentations at issue). 3