Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit concerning damages under common-law fraudulent concealment and Nevada's consumer fraud statute, NRS 41.600. The court held that a plaintiff who receives the true value of the goods or services purchased has not sustained damages under either theory, even if the plaintiff would not have made the purchase absent the alleged concealment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a plaintiff suffers damages for purposes of common-law fraudulent concealment when the plaintiff received the true value of the goods or services purchased, even though the defendant's fraudulent conduct caused the plaintiff to make a purchase the plaintiff otherwise would not have made.
- Whether a plaintiff suffers damages under NRS 41.600 when the plaintiff received the true value of the goods or services purchased.
Holdings
- A plaintiff has not suffered cognizable damages for purposes of a common-law fraudulent concealment claim when the plaintiff received the true value of the goods or services purchased.
- A plaintiff has not sustained damages under NRS 41.600 when the plaintiff received the true value of the goods or services purchased and alleges only economic injury.
- The court would not rephrase the certified question to revisit the Ninth Circuit's factual determination that appellants received the true value of their resort fees.
Key quotations
“An act of concealment does not, in and of itself, lead to a cognizable injury under the common law; instead, a corresponding showing that such concealment caused the plaintiff cognizable damages is required.” (2022 NV 48, at 8)
“a plaintiff is not damaged for purposes of a common-law fraudulent concealment claim or an NRS 41.600 consumer fraud claim when they receive the true value of the good or service purchased.” (2022 NV 48, at 12)
Factual background
Aaron Leigh-Pink and Tana Emerson stayed at the Rio's Ric All-Suite Hotel & Casino in 2017. The Rio waived their room costs but charged a daily resort fee for access to telephones, computers, and a fitness room, while failing to disclose that two prior guests had contracted Legionnaires' disease. Appellants did not contract the disease or lose access to the amenities and sought recovery of the resort fees based on the alleged nondisclosure.
Procedural history
Appellants brought a class action in Clark County District Court alleging fraudulent concealment and consumer fraud based on the Rio's failure to disclose a Legionnaires' disease outbreak. After removal to federal court, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the claims for lack of damages. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, then certified the unresolved damages question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, which answered both portions in the negative.