Opinion ID: 1620040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instruction on Justifiable Reliance.

Text: As mentioned, justifiable reliance is an essential element of fraudulent misrepresentation. As to this element, the district court gave the jury the following instruction: Concerning proposition No. 4 [Domco knew the representation was false] of Instruction No. 27 [fraudulent misrepresentation marshaling instruction] and No. 4 [Domco knowingly failed to make the disclosure] of Instruction No. 28 [fraudulent concealment marshaling instruction], Domco's agents knew the representation was false if any of the following situations existed: 1. Domco's agent actually knew or believed the representation was false. 2. Domco's agent made the representation without belief in its truth or in reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. 3. Domco's agent falsely stated or implied that the representation was based on his personal knowledge or investigation. 4. Domco's agent made a representation which he knew or believed was materially misleading because it left out unfavorable information. 5. Domco's agent stated its intention to do or not to do something when he did not actually have that intention. 6. Domco's agent knew the representation could be understood in both a true and false manner, and made the representation (a) intending that it be understood in the false sense, (b) having no belief as to how it would be understood, or (c) in reckless disregard of how it would be understood. 7. Domco's agent['s] special relationship of trust and confidence to Midwest or special source of information made it Domco's duty to know whether the representation was false. (Emphasis added.) Domco contends that the italicized portion of the instruction was not supported by the evidence because as a matter of law there existed no special relationship such as a fiduciary relationship between Domco and Midwest. Thus, Domco insists the district court abused its discretion in not granting it a new trial on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim because an element of that claimjustifiable relianceis not supported by the evidence. Even assuming the evidence supported no fiduciary relationship, Domco's contention must fail. Domco did not object to this portion of the instruction. For that reason, Domco preserved no error for our review. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 196 (requiring objections to instructions to be made before the instructions are read to the jury and providing [n]o other grounds or objections shall be asserted thereafter, or considered on appeal.); Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1994) (holding that appellate court may only consider on appeal those objections to instructions previously raised with the trial court). The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Domco's motion for new trial on this issue.