By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 6, 2013//
Torts — misrepresentation
Reasonable reliance is not an element of a statutory misrepresentation claim.
“Regarding causation, Pharmacia argues that ‘reasonable reliance’ is a component of causation that the State cannot prove because of its knowledge that AWPs were inflated. See Novell v. Migliaccio, 2008 WI 44, ¶¶49-50, 309 Wis. 2d 132, 749 N.W.2d 544 (Reasonable reliance is not an element of a WIS. STAT. § 100.18 claim, but it is sometimes relevant to the determination of causation—whether the representation materially induced the plaintiff’s loss.). In other words, since the State knew that AWPs were inflated to some degree and chose to use them—as opposed to another number—its continued reliance on AWP was not reasonable and therefore the false statements did not materially induce loss. We reject this argument as well. As we already noted, although various state officials were aware that AWPs were likely inflated to some degree, they did not know the extent of the inflation.
Furthermore, the legislature acted on its knowledge that the AWPs were inflated by discounting them by a certain percentage in the reimbursement formula. Under those circumstances, there is nothing unreasonable about the legislature’s reliance on AWP.”
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2010AP232-AC State v. Abbott Laboratories
Dist. IV, Dane County, Niess, J., Brown, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Kushner, Beth, Milwaukee; Reid, Philip C., Milwaukee; Dodds, John C., Philadelphia; Smith-Klocek, Erica, Philadelphia; Henderson, Susannah, Philadelphia; Everett, John Clayton, Jr., Washington D.C.; Donovan, Marie, Philadelphia; Potalivo, Kathryn, Philadelphia; Kaplan, Abby Jane, Philadelphia; For Respondent: Barnhill, Charles , Jr., Madison; Archibald, P. J., Madison; Eberle, Elizabeth J., Madison; Blonien, Barry J., Madison; Samuelson, Timothy C., Madison; Galland, George F., Jr., Chicago