Opinion ID: 2441662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: eighth count: negligent misrepresentation

Text: The trial court struck the eighth count of the complaint, which alleged that the defendant engaged in negligent misrepresentation, because the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. The trial court further determined, however, that the plaintiffs failed to allege a required element for a negligent misrepresentation claim, namely, that the defendant had the means to know, should have known or had a duty to know the truth of his statements. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly struck the eighth count of their complaint because they properly pleaded all the required elements of a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The defendant responds that the trial court properly struck this count because the plaintiffs failed to allege the required elements. We agree with the defendant. This court has long recognized liability for negligent misrepresentation.... The governing principles [of negligent misrepresentation] are set forth in similar terms in § 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977): One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment ... 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. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kramer v. Petisi, supra, 285 Conn. at 681, 940 A.2d 800. As a result, [w]e have held that even an innocent misrepresentation of fact may be actionable if the declarant has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has the duty of knowing the truth. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The plaintiffs in the present case failed to plead that the defendant had the means or duty to know the falsity of the statements that he made. In the eighth count, the plaintiffs incorporated paragraphs one through six of the fifth count, [19] and then alleged that [t]he representations set forth herein were careless and negligent. The fifth count, however, alleges that Harb Development violated the new home act. As a result, the eighth count lacks any allegation of a cause of action against the defendant in his individual capacity. Moreover, the careless and negligent representations alleged by the plaintiffs are violations of the new home act committed by Harb Development. As the trial court correctly noted, this allegation makes no sense as pleaded because it neither alleges false statements made by the defendant nor the defendant's knowledge or duty to know the falsity of those statements. We conclude that the trial court therefore properly struck the eighth count of the complaint. The judgment is affirmed as to the seventh and eighth counts of the complaint; the judgment is set aside as to the third and fourth counts, and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to grant the motion to strike those counts for the reasons set forth in part I of this opinion and for further proceedings according to law.