Christian Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ, 430 F. App'x 182

CMU appeals a grant of summary judgment in Bouriez's favor on negligent misrepresentation and cross-appeals the dismissal of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The dispute arises from CMU's alleged misrepresentations about microwave technology in 1997 to Governors and 1999 to Bouriez; Bouriez invested $5 million through Governors, not directly with CMU.
An arbitration between CMU and Governors (not Bouriez) culminated in an August 2006 award finding CMU negligent to Governors and affecting Governors' rights, with no ruling on Bouriez.
The District Court held the Arbitration Award precluded Bouriez's claims and granted Bouriez summary judgment on negligent misrepresentation; Bouriez II vacated and remanded for further analysis.
On remand (2010), the District Court again relied on the Arbitration Award to conclude Bouriez's negligent misrepresentation claim; it dismissed fraudulent misrepresentation based on the same reasoning.
The Third Circuit vacates and remands to resolve duty and reliance issues under Pennsylvania law, including whether Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts applies and whether collateral estoppel is appropriate for Bouriez's claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel applies to Bouriez's negligent misrepresentation claim.	Bouriez argues the Arbitration Award forecloses CMU's liability.	CMU contends the award is binding on Bouriez via collateral estoppel.	Collateral estoppel not binding; remand needed to assess duty and reliance.
Whether the economic loss doctrine bars Bouriez's negligent misrepresentation claim.	Economically damaged Bouriez is not barred because no privity; no contract.	Economic loss doctrine should preclude purely economic damages.	In error to apply the doctrine; remand to consider Section 552 duty.
Whether collateral estoppel applies to Bouriez's fraudulent misrepresentation claim.	Arbitration findings preclude fraud claim against CMU.	Arbitration concerned Governors; Bouriez not in privity; no preclusion.	Collateral estoppel does not apply; remand to determine fraudulent misrepresentation on its own.
Whether CMU's punitive damages argument affects Bouriez's fraudulent misrepresentation claim.	Punitive damages issues overlap with fraud findings.	punitive damages require intent; not necessarily identical to fraud.	We reject extrapolation from limine ruling; remand to resolve fraud claim; punitive damages not dispositive here.

Shaffer v. Smith, 673 A.2d 872 (Pa. 1996) (collateral estoppel elements; identical issues; final judgment)
Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (necessity of justifiable reliance for negligent misrepresentation)
Capek v. Devito, 767 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 2001) (privity requirement for collateral estoppel in Pennsylvania)
Yonkers v. Donora Borough, 702 A.2d 618 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997) (identical issue requirement for collateral estoppel)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel concerns)
Azur v. Chase Bank, 601 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010) (economic loss doctrine without privity; Restatement Section 552 duty)
Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 533 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (economic loss doctrine application in absence of privity)
Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 985 A.2d 840 (Pa. 2009) (Restatement Section 552 duty carve-out to economic loss doctrine)
Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (Restatement Section 552; duty to supply information for pecuniary gain)
Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 585 F.3d 765 (3d Cir. 2009) (precedent for collateral estoppel and economic loss discussion)