Look up the The fraudulent concealment doctrine allows a plaintiff to toll, or pause, the statute of limitations for a claim when a defendant has actively and intentionally hidden facts that would have put the plaintiff on notice of the cause of action. To prove fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must show the defendant had a duty to disclose, suppressed a material fact with the intent to defraud, and that the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if they had known it, suffering damages as a result. This doctrine originated as an equitable remedy and has been applied in various legal contexts, including contract disputes and federal statutes like the Clayton Act. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Elements of Fraudulent Concealment To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff generally must prove: [2, 4, 5] 1. Concealment of a Material Fact: The defendant hid a fact that was significant to the case. [5, 7, 8] 2. Duty to Disclose: The defendant had a legal obligation to disclose this fact. [5, 9] 3. Knowledge of the Fact: The defendant knew about the material fact they concealed. [2] 4. Intent to Defraud: The defendant concealed the fact with the deliberate purpose of misleading the plaintiff. [2, 9] 5. Lack of Plaintiff's Knowledge: The plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if it were known. [5, 9] 6. Resulting Damage: The plaintiff suffered harm or loss because of the concealment. [4, 5, 10] Application of the Doctrine • Tolling the Statute of Limitations: This is the most common application, where the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is extended until the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the concealed facts. [1, 8] • Duty of Disclosure: The doctrine typically requires that the defendant had a duty to disclose the hidden fact, which can arise from a fiduciary relationship, a contract, or a relationship where one party has superior knowledge. [2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14]