• 619.866.3444
  • info@socal.law
  • ProVisors
  • Payments
Gupta Evans and Ayres
  • What We Do
    • Bankruptcy
    • Business Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
  • Who We Are
  • Our Team
    • Ajay Gupta
    • Chris Evans
    • Jake Ayres
    • Alessandro Nolfo
    • Aurora Gallardo
    • Mike Covington
    • Alexander Gomez
  • How We Help
    • Referral Partner Process
    • Legal Proceedings Process
    • Case Stories
  • Resources
    • The Blog
    • Our Events
    • For Lawyers
    • Useful Forms
    • Video Library
  • Payments
  • Get In Touch
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Blame Games & Automobiles: Rattagan v. Uber Technologies and the Potential Extension of California’s Fraud Exception to the Economic Loss Rule

January 11, 2022/in Corporate Litigation/by Jake Ayres

An infinite amount of ink has been spilled over the decades regarding the proper boundary between contract and tort law.  An important reinforcement to that often-blurry boundary is the economic loss rule, which provides that a party to a contract cannot recover in tort for purely economic damages arising from disappointed expectations.  This broad-sounding rule is subject to certain exceptions, including the highly influential ruling established by the California Supreme Court in Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004), which provides that a contracting party seeking economic damages by alleging fraud—that is, intentional misrepresentation—may avoid the bar of the economic loss rule.  Id. at 991.  But what about fraudulent concealment—that is, where a party to a contract doesn’t make an outright false statement, but instead lies by omission? 

That question was recently and squarely before the Ninth Circuit in Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, No. 20-16796, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35874 (Dec. 6, 2021).  In that case, rather than resolve the question of whether fraudulent concealment is excepted from the economic loss rule itself, the Ninth Circuit instead, seeking guidance on the applicable California law, certified that question to the California Supreme Court.  How the California Supreme Court decides this issue will have far-reaching effects on how much parties can inject tort claims into contractual disputes.

In Rattagan, an Argentinian lawyer for two Dutch subsidiaries of Uber that planned to launch a ridesharing service in Buenos Aires brought claims against Uber for both contract and tort claims.  Plaintiff Rattagan alleged that Uber hid its launch plans from him and as a result, the necessary corporate and tax formalities had not been carried out at the time the ridesharing service went live.  As a result, Argentinian authorities raided his office, leaving him subject to potentially significant liability under Argentinian law.  Plaintiff Rattagan brought claims against Uber for among other things, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent concealment.  On Uber’s motion to dismiss, the district court held that because the relationship between Rattagan and Uber was contractual, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim was foreclosed by the economic loss rule.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit first analyzed the most recent California Supreme Court case on point—Robinson Helicopter.  In that case, the California Supreme Court held that intentional misrepresentation claims were not barred by the economic loss rule because such acts constitute a breach of a duty independent of the duties imposed by contract.  In so doing, the Robinson Helicopter court declined to address whether fraudulent, intentional concealment also is excepted from the economic loss rule.  The court was careful to circumscribe its holding, stating that it was “narrow in scope and limited to a defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages independent of the plaintiff’s economic loss.”  34 Cal. 4th at 993.  For the sake of context, the fraud in Robinson Helicopter involved defendant making affirmative misrepresentations in the form of fraudulent certifications for mechanical components for aviation (sprag clutches), which exposed plaintiff to potential safety and regulatory liability independent of its economic losses under the contract between the parties.  Id. at 991 & n.7.

The Rattagan court went on to note that there had been no authoritative decision on the issue of fraudulent concealment vis-à-vis the economic loss rule in the California Courts of Appeal.  Rather, the Ninth Circuit’s survey only turned up unpublished appellate cases pointing in opposite directions.  The court concluded by outlining the competing policy concerns—“freedom of contract and abhorrence of fraud.”  2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35874, at *8 (citations and quotations omitted).  That is, applying the economic loss rule to fraudulent concealment might support the freedom of contracting parties to allocate risk between them, at the expense of possibly emboldening (and shielding) dishonest parties to contracts.  The opposite would be true for extending the Robinson Helicopter extension to fraudulent concealment claims.

As for reading the tea leaves, one can make the case that the “duty independent of contract” element articulated in Robinson Helicopter would be just as met by a fraudulent concealment claim as an intentional misrepresentation claim.  Indeed, fraudulent concealment is only viable as a claim where the law imposes a duty to disclose, which only occurs in certain limited circumstances.  CACI 1901.  However, the “duty independent of contract” is but one of the two pillars of the rationale of the Robinson Helicopter exception.  The California Supreme Court was careful to say in Robinson Helicopter that it was creating an exception for “affirmative misrepresentations . . . which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages independent of the plaintiff’s economic loss.”  34 Cal. 4th at 993.  In other words, there are two “independence” requirements for the Robinson Helicopter exception to apply: (1) independence of the tort, and (2) independence of damages.  See id. at 991 & n.7, 993 (“[Plaintiff’s] claims are based on [Defendant’s] intentional and affirmative misrepresentations that risked physical harm to persons. . . . A properly functioning sprag clutch is vital to the safe performance of the aircraft, and compliance with the certificate requirement is part of an integrated regulatory scheme intended to ensure their safe operation.”).  Although the independent duty prong is discussed extensively in Rattagan, the independent damages prong is not.  Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will address that strand of Robinson Helicopter’s reasoning in its opinion.  At the very least, even if the California Supreme Court finds the “independent tort” prong dispositive of the certified question, it should restate the requirement that damages must be independent as well, to show that opportunistic plaintiffs in contract disputes cannot bring specious fraud claims for the economic damages that are entirely duplicative of breach of contract damages.

Although the economic loss rule can be seen as somewhat of an academic issue, the resolution of this certified question by the California Supreme Court will have repercussions for everyday civil litigation practice in the state.  While we eagerly await the California Supreme Court’s resolution of this ripe issue, litigants will continue to argue both sides of the extension of the Robinson Helicopter fraud exception to the economic loss rule.

Author: Jake Ayres

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
  • Link to Instagram
https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/pexels-pixabay-534216-scaled.jpg 1402 2560 Jake Ayres https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/gupta-evans-ayres_brand-identity_v4-02.png Jake Ayres2022-01-11 22:39:002022-06-21 20:33:36Blame Games & Automobiles: Rattagan v. Uber Technologies and the Potential Extension of California’s Fraud Exception to the Economic Loss Rule
You might also like
An Offer You Can’t Refuse: Civil Extortion or Demand Letter
California Supreme Court Says Lenders Owe No Duty of Care in Loan Modification Negotiations
An Offer You Can’t Refuse, Part II: No Cash, No Claim
The CBD FAQ
Back to the Futile: California Court of Appeal Expands Breadth of “Futility Exception” to Prerequisites to Mandamus Claims in Land Use Cases
Chapter 420 Bankruptcy?: How In re United Cannabis Could Open the Doors to Bankruptcy Relief for Cannabis-Adjacent Businesses

Search Blogs

Categories

Recent Blogs

  • Chapter 420, Part III: Pause for Good Cause – In re Hacienda Cracks the Door Open for Cannabis Chapter 11 Bankruptcies in Ninth Circuit.November 30, 2023 - 11:48 pm
  • An Offer You Can’t Refuse, Part III: The Dropped Dime and the Underlying CrimeOctober 23, 2023 - 11:22 pm
  • The First Amendment, Bad Reviews, and You: So You’ve Been Smeared on the Internet – Part IIOctober 18, 2023 - 11:30 pm

Connect

HEADQUARTERS

5353 Mission Center Road #215
San Diego, CA 92108

CONTACT

P: 619-866-3444
F: 619-330-2055
E: info@socal.law

CONNECT

  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to Twitter
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to Youtube
gupta evans ayres brand identity RGB Vertical White 2
smal bbb Logo
Avvo Small Logo
superlawyers Logo
small userway Logo
SDCBA Logo

© Gupta Evans & Ayres 2022 – all rights reserved

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

5353 Mission Center Road, Suite 215
San Diego, CA 92108

P: 619-866-3444
F: 619-330-2055
E: info@socal.law

  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to Twitter
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to Youtube
gupta evans ayres brand identity RGB Vertical White 2

small userway Logo
smal bbb Logo
Avvo Small Logo
superlawyers Logo
SDCBA Logo

© Gupta Evans & Ayres 2022 – all rights reserved

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

Standing to Sue: Possession vs. Ownership of Trade SecretsAirbnBe Careful What You Ban: The Coastal Commission’s Broad Authority Over... Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Accept settings

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Accept settingsHide notification only