1999 - LC - Zarrella v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins., 96-2782 - Opinion - 26p
(p10) - More importantly, however, plaintiff could not have prevailed on the misrepresentation claims because the statement did not induce plaintiff to act on them in the manner that Minnesota Mutual intended.
The statements were part of an attempt designed to retain plaintiff as an insured.
The plaintiff, however, did exactly the opposite and switched insurance companies.
There simply is no juxtaposition between plaintiff’s act of switching insurance companies with defendant’s issuance of the conservation statement, which was an attempt to persuade plaintiff to stay with Minnesota Mutual.9
See St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Ellis & Ellis, 262 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding that to succeed on the issue of reliance, the plaintiff must determine that its reliance was substantially influenced by the defendant’s misrepresentation and that such reliance was of the type that the defendant intended);
see also Restatement (Second) Torts, § 552 cmt a at 128 (1977) (“one who relies upon information in connection with a commercial transaction may reasonably expect to hold the maker to a duty of care only in circumstances in which the maker was manifestly aware of the use to which the information was to be put and intended to supply it for that purpose”).