Home Table of Contents

WPI 165.04 Negligent Misrepresentation—Failure to Disclose Information—Fiduciary Relationship—R...

6A WAPRAC WPI 165.04Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 165.04 (7th ed.)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

April 2022 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part XII. Fraud

Chapter 165. Negligent Misrepresentation

WPI 165.04 Negligent Misrepresentation—Failure to Disclose Information—Fiduciary Relationship—Relationship of Trust and Confidence—Definitions

[A fiduciary relationship exists when one person has a duty to act primarily for the benefit of another. [A fiduciary relationship existed between(name of party)and(name of other party).] [(Name of party)and(name of other party)had a fiduciary relationship if you find that(insert facts that are in dispute).]]

[A relationship of trust and confidence exists when one person has gained the trust and confidence of the other and purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind.]

NOTE ON USE

Use WPI 165.03 (Negligent Misrepresentation—Failure to Disclose Information—Duty to Disclose) with this instruction.

Use the first paragraph for cases involving a fiduciary duty. Within that paragraph, the first sentence would always be used. Choose between the second and third sentences depending on whether there are any remaining issues for the jury to resolve. Most often, the paragraph's second sentence would be used, instead of the third, because the existence of a fiduciary duty will usually already have been determined by the trial judge as a matter of law.

Use the second paragraph for cases involving a relationship of trust and confidence. Factual issues will often exist for these relationships.

COMMENT

A good summary of this area of the law is set forth in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Whiteman Tire, Inc., 86 Wn.App. 732, 741–42, 935 P.2d 628 (1997):

Fiduciary relationships include those historically regarded as fiduciary, and also may arise in circumstances in which ‘any person whose relation with another is such that the latter justifiably expects his welfare to be cared for by the former.’ Liebergesell v. Evans, 93 Wash.2d 881, 890–91, 613 P.2d 1170 (1980). In general, “[a] fiduciary relationship imparts a position of peculiar confidence placed by one individual in another. A fiduciary is a person with a duty to act primarily for the benefit of another.” Denison State Bank v. Madeira, 230 Kan. 684, 230 Kan. 815, 640 P.2d 1235, 1241 (1982). ‘The facts and circumstances must indicate that the one reposing the trust has foundation for his belief that the one giving advice or presenting arguments is acting not in his own behalf, but in the interests of the other party.’ Burwell v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 288 S.C. 34, 340 S.E.2d 786, 790 (1986). In other words, the plaintiff must show some dependency on his or her part and some undertaking by the defendant to advise, counsel and protect the weaker party. For example, a plaintiff's lack of business expertise, and a defendant's undertaking the responsibility of providing financial advice to a close friend or family member, may indicate a fiduciary relationship. McGowan v. Pillsbury Co., 723 F.Supp. 530, 536 (W.D.Wash. 1989).

(Emphasis in original.) See also In re Jones, 170 Wn.App. 594, 606, 287 P.3d 610 (2012) (a “confidential relationship exists when one person has gained the confidence of the other and purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind”); Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn.App. 899, 923, 176 P.3d 560 (2008) (same holding as in Jones); Cummings v. Guardianship Servs. of Seattle, 128 Wn.App. 742, 755 n.33, 110 P.3d 796 (2005) (a “fiduciary is a person with a duty to act primarily for the benefit of another”); Guarino v. Interactive Objects, Inc., 122 Wn.App. 95, 128, 86 P.3d 1175 (2004) (same holding as in Cummings).

Washington case law sometimes refers to the relationship of trust and confidence as a quasi-fiduciary relationship. See, e.g., Colonial Imps., Inc. v. Carlton N.W., Inc., 121 Wn.2d 726, 732, 853 P.2d 913 (1993) (quoting Favors v. Matzke, 53 Wn.App. 789, 796, 770 P.2d 686 (1989)).

[Current as of February 2021.]

End of Document