# United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Black

> Michigan Supreme Court · November 23, 1981 · 412 Mich. 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725588

## Case

- **Full name:** United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Black
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 23, 1981
- **Citations:** 412 Mich. 99; 313 N.W.2d 77
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kavanagh
- **Judges:** Levin, Fitzgerald, Moody, Williams, Ryan, Kavanagh, Coleman
- **Cited by:** 153 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725588

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the test for determining the existence of reliance is not whether the misrepresentation was the sole influence upon the complaining party in deciding to sign the agreement but rather is ‘whether the ... misrepresentation exerted a material influence upon the mind…
- holding that “independent proof of intent to induce reliance is unnecessary to maintain an action in deceit under the doctrine of innocent misrepresentation inasmuch as a material statement made in the course of contractual negotiations is presumptively made with the intention…
- explaining that “the misrepresentation must be made ‘in a transaction between’” the misrepresenter and the injured party to justify relief under the doctrine of innocent misrepresentation
- holding that the elements for false and fraudulent misrepresentation made by one party to another are 1
- describing Converse as establishing the doctrine of “innocent misrepresentation,” and stating that the doctrine “only applies to parties in privity of contract”

## Opinion text

Kavanagh, J.
(for remand). I agree that this matter must be remanded, for it is not clear what facts the trial court found as a basis for his decision.
I write separately, however, because I fear the discussions of "innocent misrepresentation” and "fraudulent misrepresentation” and "silent fraud” will confound the confusion which has marked the handling of this case. However valid or important *136 such distinctions might be in suits for damages, the claim of misrepresentation here is asserted as a defense in a suit to enforce a contract.
Plaintiffs suit to enforce the indemnity contract is resisted by defendants’ claim that they were induced to enter into the contract by the misrepresentations of the plaintiffs agents.
If the trial court finds that the plaintiff
1) Made a representation of a material fact,
2) That such representation was false,
3) That the defendants relied on such representation as all or part of the inducement to enter into the contract, Converse v Blumrich, 14 Mich 109 ; 90 Am Dec 230 (1866), he should grant relief to the defendants.
Unless the trial court makes all the above findings, he should enforce the contract.
Ryan, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.
Coleman, C.J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725588. Public record. Not legal advice.