Opinion ID: 2196394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Access to Information

Text: Citing Nelson v. Cheney, 224 Neb. 756, 401 N.W.2d 472 (1987), Citicorp argues as well that as it had no contact with the termite service, it had no greater knowledge than Gibb concerning the termite damage, and thus, Citicorp cannot have any misrepresentation liability to Gibb. Once again, Citicorp's argument overlooks the posture of the case and the allegations of the operative petition. Moreover, Citicorp's reading of Nelson is incorrect. The Nelson purchaser demanded that the vendors' agent obtain a termite inspection prior to closing. The agent explained that an exterminator already had conducted an inspection and that the agent had the termite-proofing guarantee. The sale closed, and the agent delivered the guarantee to the purchaser. The purchaser then discovered termite damage and brought an action against the vendors under the theories of false representation and fraudulent concealment. In upholding the dismissal of the false representation claim, we noted that the only representations alleged to have been made by the vendors regarding termites related to the existence of the termite-proofing guarantee. The guarantee only obligated the exterminator to return to the premises if reinfestation occurred within the guarantee period and to treat the premises for a fee. The purchaser failed to allege that the vendors or their agents made any representations concerning the condition of the premises, an essential element of the cause. That is not the situation here; Gibb alleged specific misrepresentations regarding the extent of the termite damage and its repair. Citicorp may be liable for its agent's misrepresentations if the fact proves to be that Gibb was justified in presuming that Citicorp's agent had the authority to make representations concerning the condition of the house. `Where a principal has, by his voluntary act, placed an agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform a particular act, and therefore deals with the agent, the principal is estopped as against such third person from denying the agent's authority....' Draemel, 223 Neb. at 653, 392 N.W.2d at 764. As to Gibb's fraudulent concealment claim, Citicorp further argues that nothing that it did or said regarding the property could be considered misleading, since the petition reveals that the termite service was an independent entity unassociated with Citicorp. Citicorp seems to argue that Gibb could have acquired the information regarding the extent and repair of the termite damage from the service if only he had asked. Citicorp urges that the material fact suppressed must not have been equally within the knowledge or reach of the purchaser for a purchaser to proceed with a fraudulent concealment claim. See Nelson, supra . However, this argument ignores part of Gibb's claim. He alleges that Citicorp's agent misrepresented the condition of the premises. Gibb may argue that the information was not equally accessible to him due to the misrepresentations of Citicorp's agent, for we have written that `[a]s between vendor and purchaser, where material facts and information are equally accessible to both, and nothing is said or done which tends to impose on the purchaser or to mislead him, the failure of the vendor to disclose such facts does not amount to actionable fraud....' Nelson, 224 Neb. at 760, 401 N.W.2d at 475. Accord, Christopher v. Evans, 219 Neb. 51, 361 N.W.2d 193 (1985); Flakus v. Schug, 213 Neb. 491, 329 N.W.2d 859 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Nielsen v. Adams, 223 Neb. 262, 388 N.W.2d 840 (1986); Dargue v. Chaput, 166 Neb. 69, 88 N.W.2d 148 (1958); Wolford v. Freeman, 150 Neb. 537, 35 N.W.2d 98 (1948). In the instant case, Citicorp's agent is alleged to have made representations that misled Gibb. Therefore, Citicorp may have had a duty to disclose facts regarding the condition of the premises to correct its agent's misrepresentations. Moreover, the general rule is that one is justified in relying upon a representation in all cases if it is a positive statement of fact and if an investigation would be required to discover the truth. Omaha Nat. Bank v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 213 Neb. 873, 332 N.W.2d 196 (1983). While no action will lie where ordinary prudence would have prevented the deception, this rule is generally applied when the means of discovering the truth was in the hands of the party defrauded. Id. In the instant case, Gibb claims to have relied on the information provided by Citicorp's agent. Whether such reliance was reasonable when the purchase agreement contained a disclaimer is a question of fact. Citicorp's contentions with respect to Gibb's fraud theories are without merit.