Studio, 581 Pa. 454, 866 A.2d 270, 277 (2005)); accord Azarchi-Steinhauser v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 629 F.Supp.2d 495, 501 (E.D.Pa.2009) (finding that plaintiffs did not knowingly make a material misrepresentation); Brandow Chrysler Jeep Co. v. DataScan Tech., 511 F.Supp.2d 529, 536 (E.D.Pa.2007). A plaintiff must prove the elements of negligent misrepresentation by a preponderance of the evidence. Banco Urquijo S.A. v. Signet Bank/Maryland, 861 F.Supp. 1220, 1247-48 (M.D.Pa.1994). As a preliminary matter, Hartford cannot prevail on this cause of action because it has not shown that Ms. Lewis owes it a duty. The tort of negligent misrepresentation is “premised on the existence of a duty owed by one party to another.” Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882, 890 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552, cmt. (c)
holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance holding failure to disclose may constitute supplying false information to support negligent misrepresentation claim where such failure breaches a statutory duty holding that an adopting parent may state a claim for negligent misrepresentation because an adoption agency has assumed a duty to tell the truth when it volunteers information to prospective parents holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient