fraudulent-suppression claim in Alabama

2013The obligation to communicate may arise from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of the case.” This Court defined the elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim under § 6-5-102 in Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996): “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent suppression are: (1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.” The gravamen of Ligon’s

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala. 1994)). ". . . . "`The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are "`(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.'"' Mclver v. Bondy's Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract *27 Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996))." Novartis II, 991 So

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala.1994)). [[Image here]] “‘The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are “‘(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.’ ” ’ Mclver v. Bondy’s Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996)).” Novartis II, 991

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala. 1994)). ". . . . "`The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are "`(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.'"' Mclver v. Bondy's Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract *27 Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996))." Novartis II, 991 So

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala.1994)). [[Image here]] “‘The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are “‘(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.’ ” ’ Mclver v. Bondy’s Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996)).” Novartis II, 991

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala. 1994)). ". . . . "`The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are "`(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.'"' Mclver v. Bondy's Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract *27 Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996))." Novartis II, 991 So

2007See also Parr v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. , 641 So.2d 769 , 772 (Ala. 1994); Henson v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n , 646 So.2d 559 , 562 (Ala. 1994); Sexton v. St.

1997See Parr v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. , 641 So.2d 769 , 772 (Ala. 1994); Henson v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n , 646 So.2d 559 , 562 (Ala. 1994); Sexton v. St.

2003Id. ; § 6-2-3; Hall v. Chi, supra ; King, supra ; Caudle, supra ; Hawkins, supra ; Gurley, supra ; Cazalas, supra ; Ex parte Household Retail Servs., Inc., 744 So.2d 871, 879 (Ala.1999) (stating the essential elements of a fraudulent suppression claim).

2003"Under Alabama law, a fraudulent suppression claim requires a plaintiff to show: "`(1) that the defendant had a duty to disclose an existing material fact; (2) that the defendant suppressed that existing material fact; (3) that the defendant had actual knowledge of the fact; (4) that the defendant's suppression of the fact induced the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered actual damage as a proximate result of acting or not acting.' " Ex Parte Household Retail Services, 744 So.2d 871, 879 (Ala.1999).

2007"We conclude that the trial court is in a better position to determine whether, based on the facts of this case and this Court's conclusion that individual issues of fact exists as to the fraudulent-suppression claim" and the other identified claims, "class certification is proper as to [any remaining] claims." Regions Bank v. Lee , 905 So.2d at 776 n. 11.

2006“We conclude that the trial court is in a better position to determine whether, based on the facts of this case and this Court’s conclusion that individual issues of fact exists as to the fraudulent-suppression claim” and the other identified claims, “class certification is proper as to [any remaining] claims.” Regions Bank v. Lee, 905 So.2d at 776 n. 11.

2001Defleron v. Gulf Agency, Inc., 815 So.2d 548 (Ala.Civ.App.1999).

2001See Defleron v. Gulf Agency, Inc., 815 So.2d 548 (Ala.Civ.App.1999).

2007See also Parr v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. , 641 So.2d 769 , 772 (Ala. 1994); Henson v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n , 646 So.2d 559 , 562 (Ala. 1994); Sexton v. St.

1997See Parr v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. , 641 So.2d 769 , 772 (Ala. 1994); Henson v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n , 646 So.2d 559 , 562 (Ala. 1994); Sexton v. St.

2004In Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. v. Providence Hospital, 454 So.2d 496, 505 (Ala.1984), we stated that "`[a] duty to speak depends upon the relation of the parties, the value of the particular fact, the relative knowledge of the parties, and other circumstances.'" (Quoting Jim Short Ford Sales, Inc. v. Washington, 384 So.2d 83, 86 (Ala.1980).) However, this quotation concerns one's duty to speak in the context of a fraudulent-suppression claim, not a claim alleging a failure to warn.

2004In Berkel Co. Contractors, Inc. v. Providence Hospital , 454 So.2d 496 , 505 (Ala. 1984), we stated that "`[a] duty to speak depends upon the relation of the parties, the value of the particular fact, the relative knowledge of the parties, and other circumstances.'" (Quoting Jim Short Ford Sales, Inc. v. Washington , 384 So.2d 83 , 86 (Ala. 1980).) However, this quotation concerns one's duty to speak in the context of a fraudulent-suppression claim, not a claim alleging a failure to warn.

2000Fraudulent Suppression To prevail on a fraudulent-suppression claim, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence of "(1) the suppression of a material fact (2) that the defendant has a duty to communicate (3) because of a confidential relationship between the parties or because of the circumstances of the case and (4) injury resulting as a proximate consequence of the suppression." Ex parte Dial Kennels of Alabama, Inc., 771 So.2d 419, 421 (Ala.1999).

2000Ex parte Dial Kennels of Alabama, Inc. , 771 So.2d 419 (Ala. 1999).

1998The elements of a fraudulent suppression claim are: "(1) a duty to disclose the facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act, and (4) action by the plaintiff to his injury." Cato v. Lowder Realty Co., 630 So.2d 378 , 383 (Ala. 1993).

1998The elements of a fraudulent suppression claim are: "(1) a duty to disclose the facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act, and (4) action by the plaintiff to his injury." Cato v. Lowder Realty Co., 630 So.2d 378 , 383 (Ala. 1993).

2024See McElmurry v. Uniroyal, Inc., 531 So. 2d 859, 859 (Ala. 1988) (noting than "an objection to the trial court's oral charge must be made at the close of the court's initial instructions to the jury, and it must be stated with sufficient clarity or specificity to preserve the error"). 16 SC-2024-0037 IV.

2014Corp. v. Hughes, 861 So. 2d 1088, 1100 (Ala. 2003) (reversing the trial court's class certification of a fraudulent-suppression claim on the ground that, even assuming the alleged misrepresentations were uniform, "a determination of each class member's reliance would require individualized inquiry as to whether that reliance was reasonable '"based on all of the circumstances surrounding [the] transaction, including the mental capacity, educational background, relative sophistication, and bargaining power of the parties"'" (quoting Reynolds Metals, 825 So. 2d at 108 )); Voyager Ins.

2014Corp. v. Hughes, 861 So.2d 1088, 1100 , (Ala.2003) (reversing the trial court’s class certification of a fraudulent-suppression claim on the ground that, even assuming the alleged misrepresentations were uniform, “a determination of each class member’s reliance would require ihdmdualized inquiry as to whether that reliance was reasonable ‘ “based on all of the circumstances surrounding [the] transaction, including the mental capacity, educational background, relative sophistication, and bargaining power of the parties” ’ ” (quoting Reynolds Metals, 825 So.2d at 108 )); Voyager Ins.

2014See Grayson, supra, at 286-87, 289 (noting that the elements of a fraud action necessarily include a demonstration that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation to his or her detriment and that the elements of a fraudulent- suppression claim include a demonstration that the alleged suppression "induced the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting").

2014See Grayson, supra, at 286-87, 289 (noting that the elements of a fraud action necessarily include a demonstration that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation to his or her detriment and that the elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim include a demonstration that the alleged suppression “induced the plaintiff to act or to refrain from acting”).

2014Cos. v. Whitson, 867 So. 2d 1065, 1074 (Ala. 2003) (affirming the trial court's denial of class treatment as to fraud-based claims when the record failed to establish "whether the customers relied on varying 28 1120010; 1120114 representations made by the sales representatives instead of on the alleged nondisclosure or ... whether the information allegedly not disclosed would have made a difference ...."); Grayson, 878 So. 2d at 288-89 (vacating the trial court's certification order on the ground that the evidence demonstrated material variations in individual class members' reliance on allege

2014Cos. v. Whitson, 867 So.2d 1065, 1074 (Ala.2003) (affirming the trial court’s' denial of class treatment as to fraud-based claims when the record failed to establish “whether the customers relied on varying representations made by the sales representatives instead of on the alleged nondisclosure or ... whether the information allegedly not disclosed would have made a difference .... ”); Grayson, 878 So.2d at 288-89 (vacating the trial court’s certification order on the ground that the evidence dem onstrated .material variations in individual class members’ reliance on alleged misrepresentation

2014See also Regions Bank v. Lee, 905 So. 2d 765, 774 (Ala. 2004) ("The element of a duty to disclose in a fraudulent-suppression case is analogous to the element of reliance in a misrepresentation case." (citing Mack v. General 22 1120010; 1120114 Motors Acceptance Corp., 169 F.R.D. 671, 677 (M.D.

2014See also Regions Bank v. Lee, 905 So.2d 765, 774 (Ala.2004) (“The element of a duty to disclose in a fraudulent-suppression case is analogous to.the element of reliance in a misrepresentation case.” (citing Mack v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 169 F.R.D. 671, 677 (M.D.Ala.1996))).

2013Although a judgment as a matter of law is generally appropriate when an element of a plaintiffs claim is not established, Kmart Corp. v. Bassett, 769 So.2d 282, 284 (Ala.2000), the opposing party still needs to properly move for that judgment.

2013See Transamerica, supra. That factual finding, in turn, would support a determination that the former wife could not have reasonably relied on the former husband’s allegedly suppressing the fact that the equity account existed and, therefore, that the former husband was entitled to a judgment in his favor with respect to the fraudulent-suppression claim.

2013See Transamerica, supra. That factual finding, in turn, would support a determination that the former wife could not have reasonably relied on the former husband’s allegedly suppressing the fact that the equity account existed and, therefore, that the former husband was entitled to a judgment in his favor with respect to the fraudulent-suppression claim.

2013See Bella II, 97 So.3d at 798 .

2011See Malone v. Gainey, 726 So.2d 725 , 725 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (“[A] Rule 59 motion may be made only in reference to a final judgment or order.”).

2011See Malone v. Gainey, 726 So.2d 725 , 725 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala.1994)). [[Image here]] “‘The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are “‘(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.’ ” ’ Mclver v. Bondy’s Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996)).” Novartis II, 991

2009Co., 643 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala. 1994)). ". . . . "`The elements of a fraudulent-suppression claim are "`(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose facts; (2) concealment or nondisclosure of material facts by the defendant; (3) inducement of the plaintiff to act; (4) action by the plaintiff to his or her injury.'"' Mclver v. Bondy's Ford, Inc., 963 So.2d 136, 143 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract *27 Carriers, L.L.C., 932 So.2d 883, 891 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.1996))." Novartis II, 991 So

2009Co., 729 So.2d 299, 304 (Ala.1999)." (emphasis added)); and Drummond Co. v. Walter Indus., Inc., 962 So.2d 753, 783 (Ala.2006) ("In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Owen, 729 So.2d 834 (Ala.1998), this Court recognized that in order to establish a fraudulent-suppression claim, a plaintiff must show: `(1) [T]hat [the defendants] had a duty to disclose an existing material fact; (2) that [the defendants] suppressed this material fact; (3) that [the defendants'] suppression of this fact induced [the plaintiff] to act or to refrain from acting; and (4) that [the plaintiff] suffered actual damage

2009Co., 729 So.2d 299, 304 (Ala.1999).” (emphasis added)); and Drummond Co. v. Walter Indus., Inc., 962 So.2d 753, 783 (Ala.2006) (“In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Owen, 729 So.2d 834 (Ala.1998), this Court recognized that in order to establish a fraudulent-suppression claim, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) [T]hat [the defendants] had a duty to disclose an existing material fact; (2) that [the defendants] suppressed this material fact; (3) that [the defendants’] suppression of this fact induced [the plaintiff] to act or to refrain from acting; and (4) that [the plaintiff] suffered actual damage

2009Co., 729 So.2d 299, 304 (Ala.1999)." (emphasis added)); and Drummond Co. v. Walter Indus., Inc., 962 So.2d 753, 783 (Ala.2006) ("In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Owen, 729 So.2d 834 (Ala.1998), this Court recognized that in order to establish a fraudulent-suppression claim, a plaintiff must show: `(1) [T]hat [the defendants] had a duty to disclose an existing material fact; (2) that [the defendants] suppressed this material fact; (3) that [the defendants'] suppression of this fact induced [the plaintiff] to act or to refrain from acting; and (4) that [the plaintiff] suffered actual damage

2009Co., 729 So.2d 299, 304 (Ala.1999).” (emphasis added)); and Drummond Co. v. Walter Indus., Inc., 962 So.2d 753, 783 (Ala.2006) (“In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Owen, 729 So.2d 834 (Ala.1998), this Court recognized that in order to establish a fraudulent-suppression claim, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) [T]hat [the defendants] had a duty to disclose an existing material fact; (2) that [the defendants] suppressed this material fact; (3) that [the defendants’] suppression of this fact induced [the plaintiff] to act or to refrain from acting; and (4) that [the plaintiff] suffered actual damage