in deceptive practices, Wilkey and his attorney were not deceived into thinking that the report was not favorable to him and therefore could not have relied on that assumption. Wilkey continues to assert that he was put “on unequal footing” in front of the hearing board. Appellant Br. at 25. However, a claim of fraud is concerned only with reliance on deception and provides no relief to those who see past the misrepresentations with which they are confronted. See Bryans v. English Nanny & Governess Sch., Inc., 117 Ohio App.3d 303, 690 N.E.2d 582, 590 (1996) (finding that there was no fraud when the plaintiff, by her own admission, “knew what [she] was getting [herself] into” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 348 F.3d 496, 506 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in the absence of evidence of
holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding it was error to submit a fraud claim to the jury partly because there was no principle of law establishing an obligation of disclosure holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law holding that a fraud claim premised on thirdparty reliance raises a cognizable claim under new york law