Larry Eby and his wife, Rhonda, seek reversal of the summary judgment in favor of York Division of Borg-Warner Corporation Borg-Warner which thereby denied the Ebys recovery on their claim for expenses incurred when they moved from Indiana to Florida in pursuit of employment.
The Ebys assert that Borg-Warner offered Larry a job in Florida, but that after having moved, they discovered no job was actually available. The trial court granted Borg-Warner's motion for summary judgment on the Ebys' complaint which they contend asks for damages on the basis of 1 breach of contract, 2 promissory estoppel, 3 actual fraud, 4 constructive fraud, and 5 negligent misrepresentation.
Summary judgment was inappropriate in the presence of a claim sounding in promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation, and we reverse and remand. In early , Larry was employed by Borg-Warner in Indianapolis but had begun to seek a position with the same employer in Tampa, Florida. After a period of negotiations, including interviews in Florida, the Borg-Warner facility in Tampa allegedly offered Larry a job over the telephone, to begin May 19, The Ebys put their Indianapolis home on the market and moved their belongings to an apartment in Florida.
Upon reporting to work, Borg-Warner supervisors informed Larry the man who hired him was no longer with the company and that there was no job for Larry. The Ebys now allege they are entitled to reimbursement for their moving expenses, wages lost while preparing to move but not wages lost for lack of the job itself , and various sundry expenses allegedly occasioned by their reliance on Borg-Warner's promise of employment.
The skeletal facts above are the essential allegations contained in the Ebys' one-paragraph complaint. From them, they assert five theories of recovery, a perfectly appropriate approach to pleading. See, e. Chain, Ind. These five theories are 1 breach of contract, 2 promissory estoppel, 3 constructive fraud, 4 actual fraud, and 5 negligent misrepresentation.
