further accepting as true plaintiffs’ testimony that they had to sign the DSAs (“adhesion contracts,” according to the amended complaint) if they wanted to be Amoco dealers, plaintiffs cannot be said to have detrimentally relied on Amoco’s alleged representation that they would receive a DFC/DBP offset because, even if such a representation had been made, plaintiffs still would have effectively been forced to implement the DFC program and sign the contract. In other words, a causal connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the plaintiffs’ alleged damages — a connection that depends on evidence that, but for the misrepresentation, plaintiffs would not have taken the action they did — cannot be made. See Slaymaker v. Westgate State Bank, 241 Kan. 525, 532, 739 P.2d 444 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Hence, plaintiffs’ misrep resentation claim
holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding that a plaintiffs experts differential diagnosis must at least consider other factors that could have been the sole cause of the plaintiffs injury holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim