How To Prove A Florida Fraudulent Concealment Claim
In Florida, 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 failed to disclose a material fact. The defendant hid important information or didn’t tell the truth about something significant, which misled others and affected their decisions.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of significant defects in the product but did not disclose this information to the plaintiff before the sale.
* The defendant provided misleading information about the financial stability of the company while omitting critical details about pending lawsuits.
* The defendant intentionally withheld information regarding the expiration date of the warranty, which was crucial for the plaintiff’s decision-making.
* The defendant had prior knowledge of safety issues related to the product but chose to remain silent during negotiations.
* The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff about a competing offer that would have significantly affected the value of the transaction. - Element 2. The defendant knew or should have known the material fact should be disclosed. This means that the person being accused of fraud was aware, or should have been aware, that they had important information that needed to be shared, but they chose not to reveal it, which could mislead others.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the defect in the product but chose not to disclose it to the plaintiff.
* The defendant received multiple complaints from customers regarding the same issue, indicating awareness of the material fact.
* The defendant’s internal communications included discussions about the risks associated with the undisclosed information.
* The defendant had a legal obligation to disclose the material fact due to the nature of the transaction.
* The defendant was aware that the plaintiff relied on the accuracy of the information provided during negotiations. - Element 3. The defendant knew their concealment of or failure to disclose the material fact would induce the plaintiff to act. The defendant was aware that hiding important information or not revealing it would lead the plaintiff to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have made.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware that the plaintiff relied on accurate information when making their purchasing decision.
* The defendant had previously misled the plaintiff about similar material facts in past transactions.
* The defendant actively avoided discussions about the material fact, indicating an intent to conceal it.
* The defendant received multiple inquiries from the plaintiff regarding the material fact but chose not to respond.
* The defendant had a financial incentive to conceal the material fact to secure a sale. - Element 4. The defendant had a duty to disclose the material fact. The defendant was required to share important information that could affect the other party’s decision, rather than hiding it, because failing to do so could mislead them and lead to unfair consequences.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of a significant defect in the product that could affect its safety and performance.
* The defendant had a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, creating an obligation to disclose all material information.
* The defendant had exclusive knowledge of the material fact that was not readily available to the plaintiff.
* The defendant actively engaged in discussions about the product, leading the plaintiff to rely on their representations.
* The defendant’s failure to disclose the material fact resulted in the plaintiff making an uninformed decision. - Element 5. The plaintiff detrimentally relied on the misinformation. The plaintiff trusted false information provided by the defendant, which led them to make decisions that caused them harm or loss, showing that they were negatively affected by relying on that misleading information.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff invested a significant amount of money based on the defendant’s misleading statements about the product’s effectiveness.
* The plaintiff turned down a lucrative job offer after being assured by the defendant that the investment would yield substantial returns.
* The plaintiff incurred expenses for additional services, believing they were necessary due to the defendant’s false claims about potential risks.
* The plaintiff made a long-term commitment to a lease, influenced by the defendant’s assurances regarding the stability of the investment.
* The plaintiff refrained from seeking alternative opportunities, trusting the defendant’s representations about the exclusivity of the investment.
(See RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2010. Friedman v. Am. Guardian Warranty Servs., Inc., 837 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Gutter v. Wunker, 631 So.2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).)
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 FL Fraudulent Concealment Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only