Court Opinion

ID: 9767238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:13:36.846484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.680198
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The opinion authored by Mr. Justice Zappala too broadly construes the concept of constructive fraud recognized by this Court in Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Smith, 350 Pa. 355, 39 A.2d 139 (1944) (actual knowledge of misrepresentations present). In the instant case, there is simply no evidence that PennDOT knew that sub*348stantially more than half of the conduit was not reusable; hence, an inference of fraud has no factual basis. Appellant knew that the additional trenching would be paid for at the contract unit price unless an increase was negotiated when the additional work was ordered. By failing to seek such a price adjustment, appellant bore the risk of increased costs.