Opinion ID: 1016881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Issue of Reliance’s Reasonable

Text: Reliance on the Fiduciary Relationship The second argument presented by Miller and Mannino is that there was a question of fact for the jury to resolve respecting whether, in perspective of the communications that Reliance received from INAC, Reliance reasonably relied on the existence of the fiduciary relationship. Although this argument was presented below in context of the summary judgment motion made by Miller and Mannino on Reliance’s actual fraud count (Count V), it was raised for the first time on appeal as to the constructive fraud claim.8 Hence, the argument need not be considered. 7 Miller and Mannino do not challenge the findings of the district court that, if there is a fiduciary duty, the conduct at issue here breached it. 8 Miller and Mannino acknowledge that no Maryland decision has subscribed to the novel position that they urge us to take. Instead, they cite decisions, from other jurisdictions, that address reliance on a misrepresentation of fact as an element of a constructive fraud claim. Those decisions do not support the contention, made here by Miller and Mannino, that the principal’s reliance on the fiduciary’s proper discharge of fiduciary duties is an element of a claim for constructive fraud by a principal against the agent. 15