Torts; Misrepresentation

Listen to this article

Torts; Misrepresentation

A claim for misrepresentation cannot be assigned to another party.

“Red-D-Mix challenges the court of appeals decision on four main grounds: 1) that United was not a member of the public vis-à-vis Red-D-Mix and consequently cannot bring suit pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 100.18; 2) that the misrepresentations were mere puffery and therefore not prohibited by that statute; 3) that some claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine; and 4) that all claims are foreclosed by the speculativeness of the requested damages. We hold that the first issue was not properly preserved by Red-D-Mix in its petition for review and accordingly decline to address it. As to the second issue, we conclude that the truth or falsity of the statements in question was ascertainable, and thus the § 100.18 claim should have been submitted to a trier of fact. With respect to the third issue, we agree with Red-D-Mix that United cannot file suit in the homeowners’ names because they have no cause of action under the economic loss doctrine. On the final issue, we hold that the speculativeness of damages should not have prompted the grant of summary judgment, but we overrule language from the court of appeals’ opinion prematurely construing the legal significance of the assignments.”

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

2011AP1566 United Concrete Construction, Inc., v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc.

Gableman, J.

Full Text