Fulton Bank, N.A. v. Sandquist, P., 2306 EDA 2016

Appellant (Fulton Bank) appealed an order sustaining preliminary objections (demurrer) and dismissing claims against Accountants and others arising from allegedly false financial statements used to obtain credit.
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s fraud claim, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence per se claims for failure to state a claim with sufficient specificity and because the company’s financial officer — not the Accountants — presented the documents.
Judge Ransom issued a concurring/dissenting opinion: he agreed with reversing dismissal of negligent misrepresentation and affirming dismissal of negligence per se, but dissented as to dismissal of fraud.
Ransom emphasized de novo review of demurrers and that doubts should be resolved against sustaining preliminary objections.
Ransom found the complaint alleged that Accountants drafted false statements inflating accounts receivable, knew the information was false or misleading, intended Appellant to rely on it in extending credit, and that Appellant justifiably relied and was harmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of fraud pleading	Accountants knowingly drafted false financials that inflated assets and induced Fulton to extend credit	Pleadings lack sufficient specificity; misleading documents were presented by the company officer, not Accountants	Ransom would reverse dismissal — fraud adequately pleaded under alleged facts
Standard for reviewing demurrer	Facts must be accepted as true; doubts resolved against sustaining objections	Trial court applied demurrer to dismiss claims	Court must review de novo; preliminary objections only sustainable if complaint cannot state relief
Reliance and causation	Fulton alleged justifiable reliance on the Accountants’ statements in credit decisions and resulting injury	Defendant argues reliance was on officer’s presentation so fraud by Accountants not established	Ransom: alleged facts support justifiable reliance and proximate causation by Accountants’ misrepresentations
Negligence per se claim	Fulton maintained statutory-based negligence claim	Defendants argued claim insufficient as pleaded	Ransom concurs with majority: dismissal of negligence per se affirmed

Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review and scope for preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer)
Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (doubts on demurrer should be resolved in favor of overruling preliminary objections)
Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., 874 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements required to plead actionable fraud)
DeArmitt v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (fraud pleading elements and reliance analysis)