From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Haimberg v. R & M Aviation
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
5 F. App’x. 543 (2001)
Yossi Haimberg (plaintiff) lived in Florida but was interested in buying an airplane in Illinois. The seller recommended that Haimberg hire local mechanic R & M Aviation, Inc. (R&M) (defendant) to conduct a prepurchase inspection of the airplane in Illinois. Even though R&M frequently worked on the seller’s airplanes, R&M falsely represented to Haimberg that it had no business relationship with the seller. Relying on this misrepresentation, Haimberg hired R&M. R&M later gave Haimberg an inspection report noting a few issues with the airplane but stating that its overall condition was good. Based on the report, Haimberg asked the seller to make a few repairs and purchased the airplane. Haimberg then discovered that the airplane had significant issues that had not been identified in R&M’s report. Haimberg was forced to ground the airplane and spent $75,000 to fix the issues. Haimberg learned that a different inspector had conducted a prepurchase inspection on the airplane two weeks before R&M performed its inspection. This earlier inspector found such numerous and significant problems that it declared the airplane not airworthy. Although the parties disputed what and when R&M knew about this earlier inspection, it was undisputed that some of the inspection information was in the airplane’s logbook and that R&M knew most of the remaining information while the airplane was still in its possession. It was also undisputed that R&M never disclosed the prior-inspection information to Haimberg. Haimberg sued R&M. At trial, the jury returned a verdict reimbursing Haimberg the $670 he had spent on R&M’s inspection and awarding Haimberg $50,000 in compensatory damages for R&M’s negligent misrepresentations about the airplane’s condition. R&M appealed, arguing that (1) it could not be held liable for purely economic damages caused by a negligent misrepresentation and (2) there was no evidence that R&M had made a false material statement in its prepurchase inspection report.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.