rates that [were] applied incorrectly” — i.e. the failure to use the existing rate structure was akin to a misstatement of a present fact. Id. Similarly, Kimmell was unique in that the projections at issue were based on an existing facility and on past results, which were misleading since the new rate structure did not relate to the past results. Id ed promise of future conduct would give rise to a claim for misrepresentation. A plaintiff could state a claim by identifying some adverse condition existing when the projection or promise was made that, in hind-sight, ultimately proves to undermine that projection. This would obliterate Arizona’s rule that future statements cannot serve as the basis of a negligent misrepresentation claim. See McAlister, 171 Ariz. at 215, 829 P.2d at 1261 (<HOLDING>). This is so, even where the projection or
holding that misrepresentations about present state of mind are actionable as fraud holding that promises of future conduct are not actionable as negligent misrepresentations holding negligent misrepresentation must be of existing fact not breach of future promise holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage holding that conduct actionable as state claim for defamation does not rise to level of liberty deprivation simply because government officials are involved