Wyle v. Lees, 162 N.H. 406

Defendants Scott and Christina Lees purchased a two-unit building at 38 Oak Street, North Conway, using one unit for residence and the other for rental income.
Lees hired a contractor to add a third unit with a two-car garage and to obtain necessary permits; town issued a garage permit but required site plan review and potential occupancy permits.
Site plan approvals in 2003–2004 conditioned on building permit and occupancy certificates; defendants never obtained these permits or occupancy before using the new unit, and the inspector did not inspect it.
In 2004, Lees undertook another renovation to convert a garage bay into a bedroom without permits, reducing required parking; construction did not meet codes.
Town officials later inspected (2006–2007) and questioned parking shortfalls; bond was refunded in 2007 with some site plan compliance noted, but various violations remained.
Plaintiff Stephen Wyle later purchased the property in 2008, conducted his own inspections, and discovered ongoing violations; he was ordered to correct violations before occupying the unit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether economic loss doctrine bars damages	Economic loss doctrine does not bar independent misrepresentation claim.	Damages for economic loss should be barred as arising from contract.	No error; plaintiff awarded economic loss damages where misrepresentation was independent of contract.
Whether apportionment of damages among negligent parties was required	Trial court should allocate fault among all negligent parties.	Damages must be apportioned among defendants and others under RSA 507:7-e.	Trial court implicitly found defendants solely liable; apportionment not required.
Whether plaintiff proved negligent misrepresentation elements	Defendants falsely claimed permits and occupancy; justifiable reliance and causation shown.	Evidence insufficient to show misrepresentation and reliance.	Evidence sufficed; misrepresentations, reliance, and causation established.
Whether merger clause shields defendants from oral misrepresentations	Written disclosures do not bar independent misrepresentations.	Merger clause shields from liability for oral misrepresentations.	Merger clause does not resolve issue; court did not decide its effect on negligent misrepresentation.

Plourde Sand & Gravel v. JGI Eastern, 154 N.H. 791 (2007) (economic loss rule doctrine analysis)
Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries, 223 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2000) (negligent misrepresentation distinctions in contracts)
United Intern. Holdings v. Wharf (Holdings), 210 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (misrepresentation outside contractual duties)
GBJ Corp. v. Eastern Ohio Paving Co., 139 F.3d 1080 (6th Cir. 1998) (fraud claims vs. contract promises)
Home Valu, Inc. v. Pep Boys, 213 F.3d 960 (7th Cir. 2000) (fraud claims where contract exists)
Kreischer v. Armijo, 884 P.2d 827 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (dismissing negligent construction claims in contract context)
Snierson v. Scruton, 145 N.H. 73 (2000) (elements of negligent misrepresentation; justifiable reliance)
Colby v. Granite State Realty, Inc., 116 N.H. 690 (1976) (purchaser justified in relying on seller's statements)
Demers Nursing Home, Inc. v. R. C. Foss & Son, Inc., 122 N.H. 757 (1982) (comparative negligence standards)
DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793 (2006) (apportionment and comparative fault discussion)