Opinion ID: 614396
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Concealment of Fact

Text: Last, Moriarty asserts that Equisearch committed fraud when it concealed from him the nature of the asset; more precisely, when it failed to disclose the fact that the “asset” that it had located was actually PFG stock. The district court again disagreed, holding that Moriarty failed to establish Equisearch’s duty to disclose the precise nature of the asset. A concealment of fact constitutes fraud only if, among other things, the defendant has a duty to disclose that fact. State ex rel. Illuminating Co., 776 N.E.2d at 97–98. But establishing a duty to disclose is no easy task: disclosure obligations arise primarily in situations that involve a fiduciary relationship. Federated Mgmt. Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 738 N.E.2d 842, 855 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). As the district court held, Moriarty failed to show that Equisearch acted as a fiduciary and, consequently, that it owed him disclosure obligations. Moriarty advances a single theory to support Equisearch’s alleged duty to disclose the nature of the asset: that Equisearch, as PFG’s agent or subagent, must carry out PFG’s contractual and statutory obligations to register and deliver the stock. Under this theory, Equisearch’s fiduciary duties hinge on PFG’s fiduciary duties. Yet Moriarty fails to explain how PFG’s contractual and statutory obligations entail fiduciary obligations, and he - 11 - No. 10-3447 Moriarty v. Equisearch Servs., Inc. wholly ignores the well-settled principle of Ohio law that a fiduciary relationship exists only where one party reposes “special confidence and trust . . . in the integrity and fidelity of another” who, through that special trust, acquires a “position of superiority or influence.” Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Soc’y Nat’l Bank, 662 N.E.2d 1074, 1081 (Ohio 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).