Applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit today affirmed a summary judgment against a land purchaser on the ground that it failed to present evidence of damages in support of its negligent misrepresentation claim. The plaintiff, Kemper/Prime, alleged that the predecessor of Montgomery Watson should have discovered and reported chemical contamination of 120 acres that Kemper/Prime bought in 1990 and later sold at a profit. The court considered whether Kemper/Prime raised a fact question as to "remediation" costs and concluded that it hadn’t. Kemper/Prime Indus. Partners v. Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., No. 05-1144 (7th Cir. June 19, 2007).
Blawgletter wonders why the court bothered to publish an opinion in a case with such an obvious outcome. More, the court’s discussion of Illinois law on damages for negligent misrepresentation doesn’t even resolve the question of the proper measure. And, finally, why on earth go spend 13 pages about "remediation" costs that — we learn only at the end — the plaintiff never spent and would never have to shell out, having disposed of the land for more than it paid!