fraudulent concealment claim in Colorado

2016As for the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court observed that under Allen v. Steele, 252 P.3d 476, 484 (Colo.2011), such a claim required a business transaction, and the present case involved no such transaction.

2014Co. v. Patterson, 263 P.3d 103, 109 (Colo.2011). 178 The Wainseotts' fraudulent concealment claim was rooted in the samé basic facts as their CCPA claim.

2011See In re Flat Glass, 191 F.R.D. at 488 ("With respect to the individual issues raised by fraudulent concealment, they may be adjudicated in the same fashion and at the same time as the individual damages issues, should they arise.").

2011Id. at 467 ("[E]ven without a presumption of reliance, named plaintiffs in a class action may demonstrate ignorance or reliance on a classwide basis, using circumstantial evidence that is common to the class.").

2003See Smith v. Boyett, supra. i Moreover, the fraudulent concealment claim also is based upon professional negli-genee because it requires plaintiff to show that defendant in equity and good conscience should have revealed the information or, in other words, that defendant had a duty to reveal the information.

1992See Berger v. Security Pacific Information Systems, Inc., 795 P.2d 1380 (Colo.App.1990).

1990See Eckley v. Colorado Real Estate Commission, supra. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in submitting the fraudulent concealment claim to the jury.

1982Specifically, it held that the plaintiffs were required to prove that “Woodmoor concealed known present *13 or past facts which made non-performance almost certain when it committed itself to install improvements in the future.” Ackmann v. Merchants Mortgage & Trust Corp., supra, Colo.App., 619 P.2d at 506 (1980).