What are the elements for negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation?

The elements for negligent misrepresentation, while highly similar, differ with regard to the knowledge requirement. "Negligent misrepresentation is a form of deceit, the elements of which consist of (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another's reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) ignorance of the truth and justifiable reliance thereon by the party to whom the misrepresentation was directed, and (5) damages. [Citation.]" (Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 962.) Intentional misrepresentation requires a statement to have been made with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for the statement's truthfulness. Alternatively, negligent misrepresentation requires the statement to have been made without reasonably believing in its truthfulness.

"When a party contends insufficient evidence supports a jury verdict, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. [Citations.] '"[T]he power of [the] appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradicted which will support the [verdict]." [Citations.]' [Citation.] We must 'view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor....' [Citation.] Needless to say, a party 'raising a claim of insufficiency of the evidence faces a "daunting burden."' [Citation.]" (Wilson v. County

Page 9

of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188.) "'The ultimate determination is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found for the respondent based on the whole record. [Citation.]'" (Frei v. Davey (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512.)