Opinion ID: 4571809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misrepresentations of Law

Text: As an initial matter, the Majority asserts that “[t]his Court has never applied” the doctrine of fraudulent concealment “to an assertion that the defendant misrepresented the current state of the law,” as opposed to the defendant misrepresenting a fact. Maj. Op. at 12 (emphasis in original). In Fine, this Court did state that the doctrine applies if a defendant “causes the plaintiff to relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry into the facts.” Fine, 870 A.2d at 860 (emphasis added). However, the alleged concealments in Fine were based upon misrepresentations of fact. See id. at 862 (“Fine based his assertion for the application of the doctrine on post-surgery statements he attributed to Dr. Checc[h]io.”); id. at 863 (“This is because the record shows that the statements that Dr. Rice made to Ward about the numbness during post-operative visits are disputed.”). Although this Court used the phrase “inquiry into the facts” in Fine, it does not appear that we considered whether the doctrine of fraudulent concealment would apply to a misrepresentation of law. Thus, this issue is one of first impression. Some courts in other jurisdictions have allowed misrepresentations of law to serve as the basis for fraudulent concealment. See, e.g., Ritchie v. Clappier, 326 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982) (“Where one who has had superior means of information professes a knowledge of the law, and thereby obtains an unconscionable advantage of another who is ignorant and has not been in a situation to become informed, the injured party is entitled to relief as well as if the misrepresentation [of law] had been concerning matter of fact.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Tompkins v. Hollister, 27 N.W. 651, 654-55 (Mich. 1886) (“The statute, however, by its terms, refers to the fraudulent concealment of the cause of action, which would be applicable to a