Case Name: HORD v. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERACH INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1999-08-10
Citations: 237 Mich. App. 95
Docket Number: Docket No. 200481
Parties: HORD v ENVIRONMENTAL RESERACH INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Gribbs and Murphy, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 237
Pages: 95–100

Head Matter:
HORD v ENVIRONMENTAL RESERACH INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN (ON REMAND)
Docket No. 200481.
Submitted April 20, 1999, at Lansing.
Decided August 10, 1999, at 9:10 am.
Leave to appeal sought.
R. Michael Hord brought an action in the Washtenaw Circuit Court against Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and silent fraud in connection with the defendant’s hiring and firing of the plaintiff. The court,- Donald E. Shelton, J., entered judgment on a jury verdict and award of damages for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, Wahls and Geibbs, JJ. (Hoekstra, P.J., dissenting), affirmed, holding in part that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of an affirmative statement in support of the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. 228 Mich 638 (1998). The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which, in lieu of granting leave, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of M&D, Inc v McConkey, 231 Mich App 22 (1998). 459 Mich 954 (1999).
On remand, the Court of Appeals held:
Silent fraud involves a failure to disclose information where there is a duty to do so. One such duty is the duty to disclose subsequently acquired information that renders untrue or misleading previous representations that were true or believed to be true when they were made. In this case, the jury could fairly infer that the defendant showed the plaintiff its 1991 operating summary with the intent that the plaintiff would rely on it. The defendant therefore had a duty to disclose the subsequently acquired information of its financial position in 1992, which rendered untrue any implications from the 1991 figures.
Affirmed.
Hoekstra, P.J., dissenting, stated that the plaintiffs inference from the 1991 financial figures that the defendant’s financial condition remained unchanged in 1992 is unwarranted and cannot serve as a basis for his fraud claim. There is no evidence that the defendant intended the 1991 operating summary to demonstrate the company’s financial condition in 1992 such that the defendant was under a duty to disclose its financial condition in 1992 in the absence of an inquiry by the plaintiff. The trial court’s judgment should be reversed.
Fraud — Silent Fraud.
An action for silent fraud lies for the failure to disclose subsequently acquired information that renders untrue or misleading previous representations that were true or believed to be true when they were made.
Green, Green, Adams, Palmer & Craig, PC. (by Philip Green), for the plaintiff.
Dickinson Wright PLLC (by Robert W. Powell), for the defendant.

Opinion:
ON REMAND
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Gribbs and Murphy, JJ.
Grebbs, J.
This matter has been remanded to us for reconsideration in light of M&D, Inc v McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 25; 585 NW2d 33 (1998), where a panel of this Court considered the issue of silent fraud. 459 Mich 954 (1999). We again affirm.
In the case before us, plaintiff alleged both fraudulent misrepresentation and silent fraud. As we noted in our previous opinion, 228 Mich App 638, 641, n 1; 579 NW2d 133 (1998), "fraudulent misrepresentation" denotes a standard fraud claim based on an affirmative statement, while "silent fraud" involves a failure to disclose information where there is a duty to do so. We specifically held that, in this case, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of an affirmative misrepresentation to support the jury verdict on plaintiff's claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. Because we concluded that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict on this basis, the question of silent fraud was never raised or relied on in the majority opinion. We remain convinced that the trial court properly found evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation in this case, and this Court's decision in M&D, Inc, supra, does not change that previous finding.
Having nonetheless reviewed this matter in light of our Supreme Court's remand, we find that the evidence here also supported plaintiff's silent fraud theory. As this Court stated in M&D, Inc, supra at 29, quoting and adopting Judge Young's opinion in the previous M&D, Inc v McConkey, 226 Mich App 801 (1997), defendant "also has a duty to disclose " 'subsequently acquired information which he recognizes as rendering untrue, or misleading, previous representations which, when made, were true or believed to be true." ' " 231 Mich App 29. (Citations and emphasis omitted.)
We remain convinced that the jury in this case could fairly infer that defendant showed plaintiff the 1991 operating summary with the intention that plaintiff would rely on the information it contained. 228 Mich App 642-643. Therefore, in addition to finding that the evidence here supports a claim of simple fraud, we also find that defendant had a duty in this case to disclose the subsequently acquired information of defendant's financial position in 1992^ which clearly rendered untrue any implications from the 1991 figures.
Affirmed.
Murphy, J., concurred.