Nycal Corporation v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

1998

Venue: MA SC

Facts: Plaintiff buys a major interest in Gulf, relying on KPMG's annual report. Gulf files for bankruptcy... perhaps that annual report painted a sunnier picture than was warranted? KPMG, however, knew nothing about the purchase plan.

Posture: Summary judgment for the defendant at trial.

Issue: Is KPMG liable for this harm?

Holding: No. Affirmed.

Rule: There's no legal duty if the defendant had no knowledge that the plaintiff (or a small group to which the plaintiff belongs) would rely on the information. In other words, there's no general duty of care here.

Reasoning: Straight up application or R2T § 552. We could rely on near-privity (which there isn't here) or foreseeability (which is also disfavored), but no. And ultimately, it's the client, not the auditor, who is responsible: if the client deceives the auditor, what can be done?

Dicta: