How To Prove A California Fraudulent Concealment Claim

In California, a claim of Fraudulent Concealment is defined as:
Fraudulent concealment is the intentional failure to disclose a material fact and especially the existence of a cause of action by one under a duty to make such a disclosure to another who acts or fails to act in reliance and suffers a loss.
It simply means:
When one party deliberately holds back important information from the other in order to get an advantage.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact. The defendant hid or ignored an important piece of information that could have influenced someone’s decision, making it harder for that person to make an informed choice.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to disclose the existence of a significant defect in the product, which they were aware of prior to the sale.
* The defendant provided misleading information about the product’s performance while omitting critical details that would affect the buyer’s decision.
* The defendant intentionally withheld documentation that proved the product did not meet safety standards, despite being required to disclose such information.
* The defendant made false statements about the product’s warranty while concealing the fact that it had previously been returned for defects.
* The defendant had prior knowledge of similar complaints from other customers but chose not to inform the plaintiff about these issues. - Element 2. The defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff. The defendant had a responsibility to inform the plaintiff about important information that could affect their decision, and failing to do so can be considered fraudulent concealment.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had specialized knowledge about the product’s defects that the plaintiff could not reasonably discover on their own.
* The defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, creating a legal obligation to disclose material information.
* The defendant actively misled the plaintiff by providing false information, which created a duty to correct the misinformation.
* The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was relying on their expertise to make an informed decision regarding the transaction.
* The defendant had previously disclosed similar information to other parties, establishing a pattern of disclosure that created an expectation of transparency. - Element 3. The defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff. The defendant deliberately hid or ignored important information to trick the plaintiff, showing they meant to deceive and gain an unfair advantage.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly omitted critical information about the product’s defects during the sales process.
* The defendant created false documentation to mislead the plaintiff about the product’s safety features.
* The defendant actively discouraged the plaintiff from seeking independent verification of the product’s claims.
* The defendant had prior knowledge of similar complaints but failed to disclose this information to the plaintiff.
* The defendant made misleading statements to the plaintiff while concealing the true nature of the transaction. - Element 4. The plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if they had known of the concealed or suppressed fact. The plaintiff didn’t know about an important hidden fact and would have made different choices if they had been aware of it.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s representations and did not conduct independent research due to the trust established in their relationship.
* The defendant actively misled the plaintiff by providing false information, which the plaintiff believed to be true.
* The plaintiff was unaware of critical information that the defendant had concealed, which would have influenced their decision-making.
* The plaintiff’s actions were based on the assumption that all relevant facts were disclosed, leading to a detrimental decision.
* The plaintiff would have chosen a different course of action had they been informed of the concealed fact. - Element 5. As a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damage. The plaintiff suffered harm because the defendant hid important information or lied about it, which led to the plaintiff making decisions that caused them financial or personal losses.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s representations, which omitted critical information about the product’s defects.
* After purchasing the product, the plaintiff experienced significant financial loss due to its failure to perform as promised.
* The defendant’s concealment of the product’s issues prevented the plaintiff from making an informed decision, leading to an unfavorable investment.
* The plaintiff incurred additional costs for repairs and replacements that would have been avoided had the truth been disclosed.
* The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and loss of trust in the market due to the defendant’s deceptive practices.
(See Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Fraudulent Concealment, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Fraudulent Concealment Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only