Opinion ID: 1151503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tort

Text: In order to recover on a negligent misrepresentation theory, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a fact; (2) that the representation is material or significant; (3) that the party charged failed to exercise the degree of diligence and expertise the public is entitled to expect of such parties; (4) that he reasonably relied on the misrepresentation or omission; and (5) that he suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance. Spragins, 605 So.2d at 780, citing Bank of Shaw v. Posey, 573 So.2d 1355, 1360 (Miss. 1990); Shogyo International Corp. v. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 475 So.2d 425, 427 (Miss. 1985). Misrepresentation of a fact must concern a past or present fact rather than a promise of future conduct. Spragins, 605 So.2d at 780. R.C. asserts the misrepresentation occurred when National promised to provide the furniture for the Base Supply project at a cost of $170,626.00. We have made it clear that even in cases where fraud is alleged, a promise of future conduct does not meet the requirement of a `representation' unless the promise was made with the present intent not to perform. Bank of Shaw, 573 So.2d at 1360. R.C. grounded its claim of negligent misrepresentation on National's promise of future conduct and therefore, has failed to prove an essential element of its claim. The lower court was not manifestly wrong in finding that no tort had been committed. The action of the county court in dismissing the suit of R.C. Construction Company, Inc., and the action of the Circuit Court of Leflore County, Mississippi, in affirming that dismissal, are affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, JAMES L. ROBERTS Jr., and SMITH, JJ., concur.