Abstract
Fraudulent misrepresentation actions most commonly arise in the commercial context. In Doe v. Dilling, however, the plaintiff attempted to expand the tort’s usage to an extremely personal context and hold the parents of her fiancée liable for fraudulently misrepresenting her fiancée’s HIV status. Although this Casenote agrees that the Illinois Supreme Court reached the correct result in denying the plaintiff’s claim, it argues that the court failed to provide a clear framework for future cases. Because this case is susceptible to misinterpretation and could potentially bar all claims for fraudulent misrepresentation within non-commercial settings, this Casenote sets forth a test for courts to apply in such cases. Rather than focusing solely on whether the misrepresentation occurred in a commercial context, courts should also consider whether the defendant owed the plaintiff an inherent duty and, specifically, whether the defendant is a third party to the occurrence causing the harm.
Recommended Citation
Laura Barke,
When What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Third Party Liability for Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Non-commercial Settings After Doe v. Dilling, 888 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 2008),
34
S. Ill. U. L.J.
201
(2009).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol34/iss1/7