N.C . Ct. of App.: Hurd v. Priority Automotive- Fraudulent Concealment

Summary:

Brad W.  Hurd purchased a 2018 Honda Accord from  Priority Automotive of Huntersville, Inc.,  believing it had no accident history based on a Damage Disclosure Statement provided by Priority Automotive.   Mr. Hurd later discovered the vehicle had been involved in an accident prior to purchase and that , Priority Automotive of Huntersville, Inc. had actually filed  an insurance claim for that damage. Despite Mr.  Hurd's request, Priority Automotive of Huntersville, Inc.  did not provide a CarFax accident report , instead giving an Experian AutoCheck report without pre-purchase information and later ejecting Mr.  Hurd from the dealership when he insisted on the CarFax report.  Hurd filed an Amended Complaint alleging unfair and deceptive practices, fraud, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court dismissed the claims, leading to this appeal.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's dismissal de novo, held that to state a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 for unfair and deceptive trade practices, Mr.  Hurd needed to show an unfair or deceptive act in commerce that caused actual injury. The court found Mr.   Hurd sufficiently alleged such acts and damages for the  fraud allegation, as he  needed to show:

1. A false representation or concealment of a material fact;
2. Reasonably calculated to deceive;
3. Made with intent to deceive, 
4. Which does in fact deceive;
5. Resulting in damage to the injured party   

As to fraudulent concealment, Mr.Hurd sufficiently alleged the necessary criteria:

1. Concealment of a past or existing material fact, 
2. That is reasonably calculated to deceive, 
3. Made with intent to deceive, 
4. Which does in fact deceive, and
5. Which results in damage to the plaintiff  

Lastly, the economic loss rule, which bars recovery for purely economic loss in tort, did not apply as Hurd’s claims were for intentional torts, not negligence.

Commentary:

Great work by Shane Perry.