Intentional Tort of Fraud in Pennsylvania

Background

“[F]raud must be established by clear and convincing evidence and rests with the party alleging it.” (See Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc. (2015) 123 A.3d 1071, 1083 n.9.)

“It is well settled that one who fraudulently makes a misrepresentation of fact or law for the purpose of inducing another to act or refrain from acting in reliance in a transaction is liable to the other for the harm caused by the justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation.” (See Bortz v. Noon (1997) 698 A.2d 1311, 1315.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Where a party is induced to enter into a transaction by means of fraud or material misrepresentation, such a transaction can be avoided by the innocent party.” (See Greenwood v. Kadoich (1976) 239 Pa. Super. 372, 378.)

“A misrepresentation is material when it is of such a character that if it had not been made, the transaction would not have been entered into.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“To prove a claim for common law fraud, a party must show:

1. a representation;
2. material to the transaction at issue;
3. made falsely, with either knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity;
4. with the intent [of] misleading another person or inducing justifiable reliance; and
5. an injury caused by the reliance.” 

(See Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC (2012) 40 A.3d 145, 152 n. 5; Dearmitt v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. (2013) 73 A.3d 578, 591.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of this Court's review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” (See Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (1997) 688 A.2d 736, 738 n. 2; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. E. Penn Sch. Dist. (2006) 903 A.2d 608, 613; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“The appellate standard of review is de novo when a reviewing court considers questions of law.” (See Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. (2007) 592 Pa. 458, 926 A.2d 899; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“In reviewing questions of law, the scope of review is plenary, as the reviewing court may examine the entire contents of the record.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “fraud can rarely if ever be shown by direct proof. It must necessarily be largely inferred from the surrounding circumstances.” (See Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc. (2015) 123 A.3d 1071, 1083 n.9.)

It is also well settled that “fraud consists in anything calculated to deceive, whether by single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or a suggestion of what is false, whether it be direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture. It is any artifice by which a person is deceived to his disadvantage.” (See Bortz v. Noon (1997) 698 A.2d 1311, 1315.)