The plaintiffs purchased a property that had been previously owned and remediated by the defendant, Chrysler.
The plaintiffs sued Chrysler for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging inadequate remediation and reliance on public statements made by Chrysler about the clean-up.
Chrysler moved for summary judgment.
The court granted the motion, finding that caveat emptor applied, Chrysler owed no duty of care to a subsequent purchaser, and there was no special relationship or reasonable reliance to support a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
