the context of the questioning which would establish that the Defendant—despite the false premise of the question—knew exactly what the questions meant and exactly what they were referring to.” DeZarn, 157 F.3d at 1049. Here Hardy argues similarly that Midland knew about his concerns about the cost of health care insurance (because he specifically asked about it) and that its responses to him, when viewed in this context, were deceptive, possibly intentionally so. Even though the letter may have been technically true—a finding that I do not necessarily endorse—it may still constitute a false representation given the context. That is a question that should be resolved by the trier of fact after hearing the evidence. 1 . See Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, 122 (1954)
holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that fraud claim requires proof that the defendant made a material representation that was false holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim holding that a false representation of a material matter of fact is a necessary element of a rescission claim