supply contract [the net profits agreement] with Young Refining. These representations were designed and used to induce Young Refining into changing its position and expend significant sums of money. Pennzoil negligently and heedlessly and recklessly made material and false representations of material facts to Young Refining, which Young Refining relied upon, suffering damages as a proximate result. (Emphasis added). Pennzoil contends that summary judgment was appropriate on these negligent misrepresentation claims because, as a matter of law, a broken promise will not give rise to a claim for negligent misrepresentation. See Miksch v. Exxon Corp., 979 S.W.2d 700, 706 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Smith v. Sneed, 938 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Airborne Freight Corp. v. C.R. Lee Enters.,
holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that breach of contract claim related back to misrepresentation claim because operative facts upon which the breach of contract claim was based were contained in the misrepresentation counts of the original complaint holding that whether the plaintiffs reliance on a negligent misrepresentation is justified generally raises a question of fact holding negligent misrepresentation must be of existing fact not breach of future promise holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient