original). Here, the claim is based on Chase’s failure to pay flood insurance premiums from the escrow account. Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached a duty that was owed to her specifically, not a general duty owed to the public. See Harrison v. Gore, 27,254 (La.App. 2 Cir.8/23/95); 660 So.2d 563, 568 (“The classical distinction between ‘damages ex contractu’ and ‘damages ex delicto’ is that the former flow from the breach of a special obligation contractually assumed by the obligor, whereas the latter flow from the violation of a general duty owed to all persons.”). The Court, therefore, finds that plaintiffs detrimental reliance claim sounds in contract and is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. See Stokes v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 894 F.2d 764, 770 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim has not
holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding detrimental reliance claim was subject to tenyear prescriptive period holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations