(2d Cir.1982) (exception generally has been applied only to actions for damages due to commercial decisions that were predicated on incorrect or incomplete information); Reynolds v. United States, 643 F.2d 707, 711 (10th Cir.1981) (exception applies where plaintiff relies on false representations to his 'financial detriment). Those elements include “reliance by the plaintiff ... upon the false information that has been provided,” and “pecuniary loss.” Jimenez-Nieves, 682 F.2d at 4 (citing applicable sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts). Furthermore, courts have held that the misrepresentation exception does not bar suits on other grounds in cases in which misrepresentations are collaterally involved. See, e.g., Saraw P’ship v. United States, 67 F.3d 567, 570-71 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As the First Circuit said in Jimenez-Nieves,
holding misrepresentation exception does not bar plaintiffs negligence claim where governments lack of communication was collateral to the essential act that spawned the damages holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim holding that pecuniary damages are essential to a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action