perform work for Kiwi. Synergy alleges that Ms. Willis knew these statements were false when she spoke them. Synergy contends that her intent to induce Synergy to rely on these statements can be inferred by the benefit LHC stood to receive. Finally, Synergy offers documentation of advertising run on behalf of Kiwi as evidence of its damages. Assuming for purposes of this motion that Ms. Willis made the alleged statements, Synergy’s fraud claim fails as a matter of law. First, statements by Ms. Willis as to Kiwi’s financial condition constitute an opinion. In Georgia, statements of opinion will not support a claim for fraud. Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank, PLC, 227 Ga.App. 648, 650, 490 S.E.2d 184 (1997); See also Miller v. Clabby, 178 Ga.App. 821, 822, 344 S.E.2d 751 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Synergy also alleges that Ms. Willis stated
holding agency may not rely on expert opinion without disclosing hard data supporting opinion to the public holding that sellers failure to disclose known soil conditions was not a scheme to defraud where seller did not affirmatively lie to buyer recognizing that an expression of opinion about monetary value is not a representation of fact which gives rise to an action for fraud holding that a buyer could not rely on a sellers mere expression of opinion recognizing that a common illustration of an admissible opinion under rule 701 is an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a cars speed