Opinion ID: 3011263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent

Text: Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation and Omission, and Special Duty Claims (Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX) The Hospitals raise claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and omission, and special duty against the Tobacco Companies. Proximate cause is an element of each of these claims. See Steamfitters, 171 F.3d at 934-35, 937 n.23. Here, proximate cause is lacking due to the remoteness of the Hospitals' injury in relation to the Tobacco Companies' alleged conspiracy and the speculativeness of damages. Therefore, the District Court _________________________________________________________________ 11. Another parallel argument that the Hospitals raise is that we should interpret RICO standing broadly. (Br. of Appellant at 46 (citing Blue Cross/Nat'l Asbestos Workers Medical Fund and N.O.W. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994)). As explained in the text, Judge Weinstein's Blue Cross/Nat'l Asbestos Workers Medical Fund opinion is questionable given prevailing Second Circuit doctrine. Moreover, Scheidler deals with an entirely different factual situation. See 510 U.S. 249 (plaintiff clinics alleged that defendants conspired to threaten staff and patients in order to destroy clinics' business). Generally, RICO should be interpreted broadly, but not so broadly as to eviscerate any connection between alleged wrongdoing and harm. 28 correctly dismissed these state common law claims. See id. at 934 (The same principles that lead us to conclude that plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims were properly dismissed lead to the inevitable conclusion that their statelaw claims must also fail.).