case does not resemble Delta, Ing-ham, or Sullivan. Instead, it is similar to Safari, where the plaintiff relied on the FAA’s representation that Safari was authorized to fly to American Samoa when in fact it was not authorized to do so. 2008 WL 1960145 at *1. In that case the court held that the basis of plaintiffs claim was misrepresentation, not negligent licensing or authorization; nowhere did it describe the dissemination of information authorizing plaintiff to fly as an operational task. Id. at *9-11. Here, Fina also relied on the FAA’s statements that Pan Am was a qualified flight academy and could therefore certify Fina’s personnel when in fact it turned out that Pan Am was not certi fied. See also Anglo-American & Overseas Corp. v. United States, 242 F.2d 236 (2nd Cir.1957),(<HOLDING>). According to these findings it is clear that
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 that pecuniary damages are essential to a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that the essential element for determining whether or not a claim was a misrepresentation claim within the meaning of section 2680h was reliance by the plaintiff upon the false information holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim