 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bailey v. Rowan9/17/1999
303, 304 (Ala. 1997) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). In reviewing the denial of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, this Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 863 (Ala. 1988).
Under present Alabama law, in order to succeed on a fraud or misrepresentation claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a false representation by the defendant concerning an existing material fact; (2) a representation that (a) the defendant knew was false when it was made, (b) was made recklessly and without regard to its truth or falsity, or (c) was made by telling the plaintiff that the defendant had knowledge that the representation was true, when the defendant did not have such knowledge; (3) reliance by the plaintiff on the representation; (4) that the plaintiff's reliance was reasonable under the circumstances; and (5) damage proximately resulting from the plaintiff's reliance. See Ex parte Government Employees Ins. Co., 729 So. 2d 299, 304 (Ala. 1999). A plantiff who alleges "promissory fraud" must also show that the defendant had no intention of performing as promised and that the defendant made the promise with an intent to deceive. See Ex parte Lumpkin, 702 So. 2d 462, 466 (Ala. 1997). Because this case was filed before this Court decided Foremost Insurance Co. v. Parham, 693 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1997), adopting the "reasonable reliance" standard, Rowan was required only to prove that his reliance was "justifiable." This Court explained the element of "justifiable reliance" as follows:
"A plaintiff, given the particular facts of his knowledge, understanding, and present ability to fully understand the nature of the subject transaction and its ramifications, has not justifiably relied on the defendant's representation if that representation is one so patently and obviously false that he must have closed his eyes to avoid the discovery of the truth."
Hurst v. Nichols Research Corp., 621 So. 2d 964, 968-69 (Ala. 1993) (internal quotations omitted).
The undisputed evidence in this case is that Rowan was 31 years old when he signed the employment contract. He had the benefit of over 20 years of education, including 4 years of medical school. Rowan had also completed a five-year residency program at the University of South Alabama. The plain and unambiguous language of the employment contract states that Rowan would receive a bonus only if he renewed his employment with Bailey for a second year and was still "employed by [Bailey] at [Bailey's] corporate year end following the first anniversary of agreement." The plain and unambiguous language of the employment contract also states that the contract could be modified only by a writing signed by both Bailey and Rowan. "Other than by closing his eyes to avoid discovering the truth, [Rowan] could not have failed to realize" that the contract terms regarding the bonus could not be modified without a signed writing. Hurst, 621 So. 2d at 969. Accordingly, Rowan did not justifiably rely on any representation he says Bailey made with respect to the bonus. See id.
III.
The trial court erred by denying Bailey's motion for a judgment as a matter of law on Rowan's fraud claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for that court to enter a judgment in favor of Bailey on those claims.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Maddox, Houston, Lyons, and Brown, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|