§ 6.6.5 Negligent Misrepresentation. Arizona recognizes the tort of negligent misrepresentation under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552, Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others.83 It states:
(1) One who in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transaction is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating information.
(2) Except as stated in Subsection (3), the liability stated in Subsection (1) is limited to loss suffered
(a) by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance he intends to supply the information or knows that the recipient intends to supply it; and
(b) through reliance upon it in a transaction that he intends the information to influence or knows that the recipient so intends or in a substantially similar transaction.
(3) The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to protect them.
The highest court in Arizona and related appellate decisions have significantly refined the requisite proof in a negligent misrepresentation case. In Gipson v. Kasey,84 the Arizona Supreme Court held that foreseeability is not a factor to be considered by courts when making determinations of duty in negligence actions; and that privity or special relationship is not required to establish a duty of care in a negligent misrepresentation cause of action in Arizona. In Gipson v. Kasey, the Arizona Supreme Court specifically declined "to set forth foreseeability standards such as to limit or open the field of potential plaintiffs for each and every professional,"85 stating that each case against a professional under Section 552 must be taken individually.
In a subsequent case outside of the professional negligence arena, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the duty of care element in negligence claims. In Gipson a surviving parent prevailed in a wrongful death claim against the deceased employee's coworker for negligently causing the deceased employee's death by sharing prescription pills. In Gipson the defendant had no direct relationship with the deceased, rather the defendant gave the pills to the deceased's girlfriend. The...
