"The plaintiff admits that the breach of fiduciary relationship which he is attempting to assert is a 'scheme to defraud.' Rule 9(b) must therefore be followed."
How later courts described this case
- "The plaintiff admits that the breach of fiduciary relationship which he is attempting to assert is a 'scheme to defraud.' Rule 9(b) must therefore be followed."
- “[W]e hold that Indiana Trial Rule 9(B)—which requires that fraud be pleaded with ‘particularity’—applies to actions under the [IDCSA] Act that are ‘grounded in fraud.’”
- allegations that “amount to an assertion that McKinney made promises—sometimes in the form of warranties and guarantees—and then failed to perform” did not state claims under IDCSA
- noting the lack of an intent-to-defraud element in IDCSA claims based on uncured deceptive acts as opposed to incurable deceptive acts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, J.,
concurs in Parts I through IV of the opinion but dissents from Part V, believing the allegations were pled with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 9(B).