Cali. Supreme Court Weighs in on Fraudulent Concealment Claims in Uber Case

0
1590

Tobisman later in the hearing argued that in her client’s case, the fraudulent concealment occurred during the contract, but that Uber’s wrong behavior toward her client is “frankly totally separate from the contract. I think the obligation not to set somebody up as your fall guy and your lighting rod, which is what happened to Mr. Rattagan, is an obligation that exists so far outside the realm of —”

Justice Martin L. Jenkins cut Tobisman off and said, “But it arises in the context of a contract.”

“It arises during the performance of a contract in that these two people are in a contractual relationship, but it’s independently wrongful in the sense that there’s an intentionality,” Tobisman said. “I mean, the whole idea of fraud is that it’s conduct that you have set out to draw somebody into a situation where if you gave them that material piece of information they could have protected themselves.”

Rattagan first sued in 2019 and twice amended his complaint, seeking to hold Uber liable for fraudulent concealment, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting fraudulent concealment over what he called the company’s “recklessly orchestrated” entry into the Argentine capital.