Blog

On January 10, 2012, the Court of Appeals entered an Order vacating its prior opinion of October 18, 2011. Accompanying the Order was a new opinion. That opinion is identical to the prior one with the exception of minor changes to the Court’s analysis on whether it was proper to provide a jury instruction on comparative fault. Plaintiff argued that the instruction was improper because its claim for negligent misrepresentation did not fall within the scope of the comparative fault statute. As it had done so in its prior decision, the Court concluded that the instruction was proper.