Case Explained: PETERS BROADCAST ENGINEERING, INC v. PEM CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, PEM Consulting Group, LLC, Philip Miller, and their insurers, dismissing all claims brought by Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. The court applied de novo review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Indiana state law to evaluate whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the existence of a contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with business relations. Regarding the breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims, the court held that no enforceable agreement existed because the parties failed to reach mutual assent on essential terms, such as the scope of PEM’s obligations and the specific roles of third-party intermediaries. Under Indiana law, a preliminary agreement is unenforceable if it lacks certainty regarding essential terms, and the record contained no evidence that the parties agreed on all material conditions prior to performance. On the fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation claims, the court ruled that Peters Broadcast could not establish reasonable reliance because the alleged false statements regarding funding sources and equipment ownership were made in July 2019, after PEM had already begun work and Peters Broadcast had already granted access to the project sites. Consequently, Peters Broadcast could not demonstrate that it took action in response to these statements or suffered injury proximately caused by them. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding no evidence that PEM requested the benefits conferred by Peters Broadcast, such as payments for equipment and crews, nor did the record support a finding that retaining a $6,000 payment was unjust given PEM’s incurred expenses and the lack of an express or implied request for reimbursement. The negligent misrepresentation claim was rejected because Indiana law limits this tort to “advisory” relationships where one party is compensated to provide professional guidance; Mr. Miller’s statements were made during contract negotiations rather than as a professional service. Finally, the tortious interference claim failed because PEM had a legitimate reason—unpaid work expenses—to contact Crown Castle for payment, negating any finding of malicious intent or lack of justification. As no underlying claims against PEM and Miller survived, the insurers were correctly granted summary judgment sua sponte on the declaratory judgment count. The practical consequence is that Peters Broadcast’s lawsuit is terminated with no liability imposed on the defendants or their insurance carriers, and the district court’s dismissal of all counts stands as final. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.