516 N.E.2d 515, 522 (Ill.App.Ct.1987). BP takes that statement out of context. The court made that statement in the context of discussing what must be proven in order to satisfy an exception to the general rule prohibiting fraud claims based on promises to perform a future act when the false promise or representation of future conduct is a scheme to defraud. Id. at 113-114, 114 Ill.Dec. at 367, 516 N.E.2d at 522. The case here is readily distinguishable, and any supposed “unambiguous” requirement does not apply. To the extent the cases BP cites concern fraud regarding present facts, the Court refuses to rely on them. Those cases find that statements which are general and indefinite are not statements of fact. See, e.g., Evertz v. Aspen Med. Group, 169 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1031 (D.Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Pig Improvement Co. v. Middle States Holding
holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions holding that outofcourt statements that are offered to explain a police investigation are neither hearsay nor violative of the confrontation clause holding that statements that employee was doing a good job are more akin to opinions than statements of fact and on this basis are not actionable in fraud and citing a state case as holding that neither opinions nor statement that are general and indefinite are representations of fact giving rise to a misrepresentation claim holding that misrepresentations about present state of mind are actionable as fraud holding that as a general rule pleadings filed in this court are public records and are not subject to being sealed