Lovejoy

Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp.

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 4th 151·14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 851·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6574·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4780
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 2004No. C043320California3,596 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Morrison, J.

Robert Lovejoy, individually and doing business as Lovejoy Drilling, filed a lawsuit alleging that AT&T Corporation had changed his telephone service to a toll-free 800 number without his permission and hid that fact from him, a practice known as “slamming.” He further alleged that as a result he lost his business. In Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 711 ], this court held that Lovejoy’s complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. On remand AT&T moved for summary judgment, contending there was no concealment because the fact that AT&T was providing toll-free 800 number service was clearly disclosed in the invoices AT&T sent to Lovejoy each month. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

Lovejoy appeals from the judgment of dismissal, contending there is a triable issue of fact as to whether there was concealment. We agree. Fraudulent concealment includes nondisclosure where there is a duty to disclose. The duty to disclose in the' context of changing the provider of telephone service is governed by the provisions of Public Utilities Code section 2889.5, which requires both full disclosure and verification of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.