Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59 (2026)

Constructive fraud defined

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Constructive fraud consists: 1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or, 2. In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud. R.L.1910, § 904.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Specialty Beverages, L.L.C v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Specialty Beverages, L.L.C v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59 . As specifically relevant here, “[cjonstructive fraud is ‘the concealment of material facts which one is bound under the circumstances to disclose.”
Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc., 308 P.3d 1041 (Okla. 2013). · cites it 2× “15 O.S.2001, § 59, now 15 O.S.2011, § 59, defines constructive fraud: Constructive fraud consists: 1.”
Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, 2020 OK 87 (Okla. 2020). “Constructive fraud is defined in 15 O.S. 2011, §59 and consists of: 1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any…”
Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). “Constructive fraud is defined at 15 O.S.1981 § 59 as: 1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or anyone claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming…”
Palace Expl. Co. v. Petroleum Dev. Co., 316 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2003). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59 . Palace asserts that the letter agreement executed between it and PDC established a fiduciary relationship between the parties and, as a result, PDC had a duty to inform Palace of the change in well location and to not misrepresent how it would go…”
Lazy S Ranch Props. v. Valero Terminaling & Distrib., 92 F.4th 1189 (10th Cir. 2024). “Constructive Fraud Under Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59 , constructive fraud occurs “[i]n any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault .”
Hitch Enter., Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (W.D. Okla. 2012). “, 15 O.S. § 59. To be actionable, however, constructive fraud like actual fraud “requirefs] detrimental reliance by the .”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Lloyd, 787 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1990). “Constructive fraud is statutorily defined in 15 O.S.1981 § 59. .The Code of Professional Responsibility [Code] was superseded by the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct [Model Rules], 5 O.”
N.C. Corff P'ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “” 15 O.S.1991 § 59. The definition implies that there must be actual knowledge, by the person accused of fraud, of information concerning the matter at issue, the non-disclosure of which, when there is a duty to disclose, is prejudicial to the person claiming damage.”
Bankers Trust Co. v. Brown, 2005 OK CIV APP 1 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). “2d 1328, 1332 (citation omitted); see *614 also 15 O.S.2001 § 59(1). However, “[a]n action for fraud may not be predicated on false statements when the allegedly defrauded party could have ascertained the truth with reasonable diligence.”
Cosper v. Farmers Ins. Co., 309 P.3d 147 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). “3 Since Defendants did not owe Plaintiffs a duty in negligence or for misrepresentation, their claim for constructive fraud also fails.”
Gentry v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 867 P.2d 468 (Okla. 1994). “Title 15 O.S.1991, § 59 1 provides: Constructive fraud consists: 1.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59(1) — 1 case
Bankers Trust Co. v. Brown, 2005 OK CIV APP 1 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). “2d 1328, 1332 (citation omitted); see *614 also 15 O.S.2001 § 59(1). However, “[a]n action for fraud may not be predicated on false statements when the allegedly defrauded party could have ascertained the truth with reasonable diligence.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59(2) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.