Billboard easement holder brought action against owner of property neighboring property on which easement was located, city, and city development authority, asserting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contractual and business relations, nuisance, inverse condemnation, and breach of easement contract, and seeking punitive damages and litigation expenses, relating to alleged destruction of billboard easement through rezoning.
The trial court denied motions to dismiss by neighboring owner and city and authority. Neighboring owner and city and authority brought interlocutory appeals.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Holder adequately pleaded claims against neighboring owner;
- Acts of city and authority in connection with rezoning were governmental functions, and thus, there was no waiver of sovereign immunity for such acts for holder’s claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with contract, and fraud-based civil conspiracy; and
- Holder did not state cause of action against city or authority for nuisance, inverse condemnation, or breach of easement contract.