Court Opinion

ID: 9695355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:16:05.973745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:11.083798
License: Public Domain

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 68. {concurring). I concur with the majority's determination that the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed. In this case, there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.
¶ 69. The seminal issue on appeal in this case is whether reasonable reliance is an element of the statutory misrepresentation claim. In following K&S Tool & Die Corporation v. Perfection Machinery Sales, Inc., 2007 WI 70, 301 Wis. 2d 109, 732 N.W.2d 792, reasonable reliance is not an element of a Wis. Stat. § 100.18 misrepresentation claim. I write separately, however, *159because reasonable reliance is a valid consideration not only for the fact finder, but also the circuit court judge and even at summary judgment.
¶ 70. The second and third elements of a Wis. Stat. § 100.18 claim include reasonable or justifiable reliance as a consideration. "[T]he reasonableness of a plaintiffs reliance may be relevant in considering whether the representation materially induced (caused) the plaintiff to sustain a loss." Majority op., ¶ 3. Thus, a court may consider whether the representation materially induced the plaintiffs pecuniary loss. K&S Tool & Die Corp., 301 Wis. 2d 109, ¶ 37.
¶ 71. I write separately because I believe that under different facts the court may rightfully determine, as a matter of law, that a party's reliance is so unreasonable that summary judgment or dismissal of a Wis. Stat. § 100.18 claim is appropriate. I do not want the majority decision today to be viewed as an absolute bar to summary judgment determination of a § 100.18 claim, under all circumstances. While an unscrupulous seller ought not benefit from deceiving a purchaser, § 100.18 ought not protect a fully informed consumer who, with knowledge that a defect exists, ignores the obvious, proceeds to purchase, and then later makes a claim for statutory misrepresentation.
¶ 72. While I do not advocate for the protection of a seller who purposefully misrepresents the condition of a home and lies to a purchaser in order to induce the sale of a home, there may be circumstances where a buyer should be held responsible for his or her failure to take reasonable action. This decision today does not address such a situation where the buyer has actual knowledge that representations are untrue or has independent knowledge regarding a defective condition, but proceeds to purchase despite that knowledge. This *160decision does not address a situation where there is no question that the seller has innocently acted and defects are later discovered. What the court has decided today is that here, there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved at summary judgment.
¶ 73. For the foregoing reasons I concur.