to reject this contention. In Neurosurgery, the Second District stated, in rather categorical terms: “Simply put, fraudulent misrepresentation has emerged as a tort distinct from the general milieu of negligent and intentional wrongs and applies only to interferences with financial or commercial interests where a party suffers some pecuniary loss.” Neurosurgery, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 186. The court in Neurosurgery added that the theory of fraudulent misrepresentation was unavailable to a plaintiff who suffered physical harm. Neurosurgery, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 186. The court explained its reasoning as follows: “[fraudulent misrepresentation is purely an economic tort under which one may recover only monetary damages. McConkey v. AON Corp., 354 N.J. Super. 25, 59, 804 A.2d 572, 593 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Jourdain v. Dineen, 527 A.2d 1304, 1307 (Me.
holding those who are to perform the command of the writ are necessary parties recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1 holding that damaged in a fraudulent misrepresentation action are limited to those that are pecuniary holding that liberty interests that are protected by procedural due process are generally limited to freedom from restraint holding that provisions in a subcontract incorporating a prime contract for a limited purpose are limited only to those that are applicable