although termite inspector’s inspection report was not delivered to purchasers directly, facts that inspector was aware that premises being inspected were being sold and that report would be provided to and relied upon by prospective purchasers made purchasers’ reliance foreseeable and justifiable, for purposes of determining liability for negligent misrepresentation
How later courts described this case
- although termite inspector’s inspection report was not delivered to purchasers directly, facts that inspector was aware that premises being inspected were being sold and that report would be provided to and relied upon by prospective purchasers made purchasers’ reliance foreseeable and justifiable, for purposes of determining liability for negligent misrepresentation
- no requirement of a guaranty of accuracy for tort of negligent misrepresentation, but this is “a factor to be considered in determining whether a plaintiffs reliance is foreseeable and justifiable”
- termite inspector, who was hired by the real estate broker, was liable to the buyer for negligent misrepresentation
- labor and material costs incurred by homeowner to repair termite damage undetected by termite inspector
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring:
I concur in the decision to affirm. However, I do not deem the circumstances here to be substantially different than in Grass. The direction of the report there to persons whom it might concern indicated that it was being prepared for the use of persons other than those requesting it. The foreseeability of reliance there was as great as here. The fact that the liability there was vicarious while here it is direct makes no difference. I cannot reconcile the two decisions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the majority but which do not seek to distinguish the cases, I would overrule Grass.