Opinion ID: 199327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Elements of Deceit

Text: 19 The borderline between what is an action for deceit and what is an action for negligent misrepresentation is unclear under Massachusetts case law. In an action for deceit under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant: made a false representation of material fact; for the purpose of inducing reliance; and that plaintiff relied upon the representation to his or her detriment. Danca v. Taunton Sav. Bank, 429 N.E.2d 1129, 1133 (Mass. 1982); Snyder v. Sperry and Hutchinson Co., 333 N.E.2d 421, 428 (Mass. 1975). Proof of intent to deceive is not required, so long as there is proof of a false representation of fact susceptible of the speaker's knowledge. Snyder, 333 N.E.2d at 428. The uncertainty has to do with what role the speaker's knowledge of the falsity plays. 20 Many Massachusetts cases say that an element of deceit is that the speaker made a false representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity. Danca, 429 N.E.2d at 1133 (emphasis added); see also Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 322 N.E.2d 768, 779 (Mass. 1975) (comparing common law fraud to Chapter 93A claim); Barrett Assoc. v. Aronson, 190 N.E.2d 867, 868 (Mass. 1963); Kilroy v. Baron, 95 N.E.2d 190, 191 (Mass. 1950); Rood v. Newberg, 718 N.E.2d 886, 892 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999); accord Borden v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370, 379 (1st Cir. 1991). But other deceit cases say plaintiffs need not prove that [defendant] knew his statement to be false so long as there is proof that the representation was false and susceptible of actual knowledge. Nickerson v. Matco Tools Corp., 813 F.2d 529, 530 (1st Cir. 1987); see also VMark Software, Inc. v. EMC Corp., 642 N.E.2d 587, 593 n.9 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) (speaker need not know statement is false if fact represented is susceptible of actual knowledge); Zimmerman, 575 N.E.2d 70 at 74 (same); Acushnet Fed. Credit Union v. Roderick, 530 N.E.2d 1243, 1244-45 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988) (same). 21 At the very least, there is a lack of clarity in Massachusetts case law. See In re Friedlander, 170 B.R. 472, 476-78 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1994) (noting confusion). The confusion may stem from the mixing of the concept of knowledge with the concept of intent to deceive, or from use of language without an effort to distinguish which sort of misrepresentation is alleged. The Supreme Judicial Court has not, as best we can tell, addressed this question. But it has referred to the Restatement (Second) of Torts in this area, see Robertson v. Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, 536 N.E.2d 344, 349 (Mass.) (intentional misrepresentation), cert denied, 493 U.S. 894 (1989); Rasmussen, 243 N.E.2d at 168-69 (same); Danca, 429 N.E.2d at 1134 (negligent misrepresentation), so we will use those Restatement definitions. 22 Since Massachusetts considers deceit to be a variety of fraud, we utilize the definition in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 526: 23 A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker (a) knows or believes that the matter is not as he represents it to be, (b) does not have the confidence in the accuracy of his representation that he states or implies, or (c) knows that he does not have the basis for his representation that he states or implies. 24 Knowledge for the purpose of showing fraud is established by any of these three conditions. A claim of deceit has been categorized as an intentional tort, Mohr v. Com, 653 N.E.2d 1104, 1115 n.16 (Mass. 1995); G & B Assoc. v. Springfield, 653 N.E.2d 203, 205 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). As will be discussed later, [m]ere negligence in discovering the falsity before making the representation is not sufficient for an action in tort for deceit, but it is enough for an action in negligence. 37 J. Nolan & L. Sartorio, Massachusetts Practice § 143 at 240-41 (2d ed. 1989). A defendant who makes a false statement may be liable for deceit if he implicitly conveyed that he had knowledge of the represented fact. See McEneaney, 650 N.E.2d at 96; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 526. 25 The issue is whether, at the time HPG made the statements, HPG knew that the statements were false within the Restatement test. See Zimmerman, 575 N.E.2d at 74. Here, Cummings has failed to offer evidence that HPG had any basis for knowledge that the statements, at the time they were made, were false, a failure that is fatal to Cummings' deceit claim. See id. at 74-75. 26 The latest that HPG could have made any allegedly false representations was 1986, assuming arguendo that Cummings can maintain a claim based on the 1986 roof on a building sold to St. Thomas Realty in 1990, see infra. Cummings offers a single article, dated 1986, reporting problems (other than shattering) with PVC roofs in the early 1980s, and admits that it has no basis to impute knowledge of that report to HPG at the time of the sales. The letters and the other articles Cummings relies on post-date the 1986 sale, as does the shatter log, which shows that by 1990, HPG had tracked claims of 121 shattered roofs. There is simply no evidence to suggest that HPG knew or should have known that its statements about its product were false, in the Restatement sense, when HPG made the statements.