To sustain a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendant made a representation of an existing or past fact; 2) the representation was false when made; 3) the representation was in regard to a material fact; 4) the false representation was made either knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly; 5) plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresented material fact, and 6) plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the misrepresentation. Devorak v. Patterson, 907 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995) (quoting Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, Davidson Co. v. McKinney, 852 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992)).
Biancheri v. Johnson 2009 WL 723540, 7 (Tenn.Ct.App.) (Tenn.Ct.App.,2009)
Justifiable reliance is a necessary element in a cause of action based upon negligent (or fraudulent) misrepresentation. This element is not subject to a comparative fault analysis, and until the justifiable reliance element is established, there is no negligent misrepresentation. Lambdin v. Garland, 723 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Graham v. First American Nat’l Bank, 594 S.W.2d 723, 725 (Tenn.Ct.App.1979).
McNeil v. Nofal 185 S.W.3d 402, 409 (Tenn.Ct.App.,2005)