Negligent Misrepresentation-Tortious Interference

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. v. PEM Consulting Group, LLC

Case No.: 25-1519

Officials: Easterbrook, Ripple, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Negligent Misrepresentation-Tortious Interference

A small Indiana telecommunications engineering company and Crown Castle, a larger telecommunications infrastructure firm formed a business relationship with a master services agreement under which the engineering company could perform construction-related work on cellular tower sites. The agreement, however, did not guarantee any specific projects or compensation and required prior approval of any subcontractors. Anticipating that it lacked the personnel and resources necessary to perform the required work, the smaller company began discussions with a group of contractors, including the defendants, before the agreement was finalized. Although the parties exchanged communications and circulated a draft proposal concerning a potential subcontracting arrangement, they never reached a final agreement.

Despite the absence of a completed subcontract, work proceeded. The defendants supplied labor crews, equipment, and funding, while the plaintiff company also contributed personnel, resources, and project-related expenses. As the project progressed, disagreements emerged regarding the parties’ respective obligations and responsibilities. Payments were made between the parties, but some were later reversed or charged back. Ultimately, the defendants contacted Crown Castle directly in an effort to obtain payment for their work. The project ended after Crown Castle terminated its relationship with the plaintiff company, citing deficiencies in the quality of the work performed.

The Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The court concluded that no enforceable contract existed because both sides acknowledged that a final agreement had never been reached and that essential contractual terms remained unresolved. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, finding no evidence of actionable reliance or a relationship giving rise to a duty to provide accurate advice. The unjust-enrichment claim failed because the plaintiff could not show that the defendants retained a benefit under circumstances that would make such retention inequitable. The court likewise dismissed the claim for tortious interference with business relations, determining that the defendants’ conduct was justified by their legitimate interest in securing payment for services rendered. Because the substantive claims failed, summary judgment was also entered in favor of the insurer defendants.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the parties had never formed an enforceable contract and that the record did not support claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or tortious interference with business relations.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/17/26

Full Text