Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

How later courts described this case

• declining to "extend the reliance element of fraud to include a claim based on the reliance of a third party, rather than the plaintiff," id. at 829, 37 N.Y.S.3d 750, 59 N.E.3d 485, but acknowledging that a plaintiff can allege fraud to the extent that a third party "acted as a conduit to relay the false statement to plaintiff, who then [personally] relied on the misrepresentation," id. at 828, 37 N.Y.S.3d 750, 59 N.E.3d 485
• deciding the issue certified by the Second Circuit that “a fraud claim requires the plaintiff to have relied upon a misrepresentation by a defendant” and declining to “extend the reliance element of fraud to include a claim based on the reliance of a third party [on that information] rather than plaintiff.”
• declining “to extend Landon’s reasoning to impose a duty upon a laboratory to test subjects that requires the laboratory to adhere to aspects of the federal regulations and guidelines that do not implicate the scientific integrity of the testing process.”
• disagreeing with the majority that reliance cannot be established through evidence that a third party relied on the alleged misrepresentation even when the misrepresentation was made with the intent of influencing the plaintiff and causing injury

Written by the judges who cited it.