33 F. Supp. 3d 1277
D. Wyo.2014Background
- This case arises from a donation to TIGHAR, an organization investigating Amelia Earhart's disappearance and the Earhart aircraft wreckage.
- TIGHAR, led by Richard Gillespie, undertook expeditions to Nikumaroro and publicized findings to fund further exploration.
- After 2010 and 2012 expeditions, analyses of underwater video suggested objects that could be from Earhart’s plane, but were not conclusive.
- Plaintiff funded approximately $1 million for the 2012 expedition, relying on representations that the expedition aimed to locate the wreckage.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants knowingly concealed that they had found Earhart wreckage or that evidence supported their theory, to obtain further funding.
- Plaintiff asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud under Wyoming law and seeks judgment as a matter of law on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants’ representations were false facts | Glickman’s analyses allegedly proved Earhart wreckage; Defendants knew or should have known this; misrepresented ongoing search. | 2010 footage showed only probable/possible objects; not conclusive; statements were opinions or not false. | No genuine factual misrepresentation; statements were opinions, not false facts. |
| Whether Defendants exercised reasonable care in obtaining or communicating information | Defendants failed to use proper scientific methodology and ignored evidence suggesting wreckage. | No established standard of care shown; experts disagree; no evidence of negligence or failure to communicate. | Insufficient evidence of duty/breach; no reasonable care established; summary judgment granted. |
| Whether Plaintiff reasonably relied on any misrepresentation to his detriment | Plaintiff relied on representations about ongoing search and potential discovery to fund expeditions. | Reliance on opinion-based statements and publicly available footage; no misleading fact established. | Reliance not justified; no material misrepresentation shown; accordingly, no damages from misrepresentation. |
| Whether fraud and negligent misrepresentation require proof of actual falsity by clear/convincing evidence | Bevington object and 2010 footage show definite wreckage; evidence supports falsity. | Falsity not proven; opinions and inconclusive evidence do not amount to fraud. | Lack of clear, convincing evidence of falsity; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyo. Sugar Growers, LCC v. Spreckels Sugar Co., Inc., 925 F.Supp.2d 1225 (D. Wy. 2012) (negligent misrepresentation requires false information)
- Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 75 P.3d 640 (Wyo. 2003) (misrepresentation must be of fact, not opinion)
- Excel Constr., Inc. v. HKM Eng’g, Inc., 228 P.3d 40 (Wyo. 2010) (fraud elements; clear and convincing standard)
- Throckmartin v. Century 21 Top Realty, 226 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2010) (fraud requires knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive)
- Rice v. U.S., 166 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standards; evidence must be probative)
- Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 649 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment inference standards; genuine disputes required)