Dennis E. Hess, Appellant-Respondent v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.a., Respondent-Appellant

Summary

The court held that Chase could be liable for fraudulent nondisclosure because it had superior knowledge of the EPA investigation, Hess could not reasonably have discovered that investigation, and contractual disclaimers did not waive Chase’s pre-contractual duty to disclose. The court also held that the 2000 amendment to the Merchandising Practices Act could apply to Hess’s 1999 transaction for purposes of actual damages and attorney’s fees, but not punitive damages. The MPA claim was remanded for further proceedings concerning whether Hess purchased the property primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Judges Teitelman and Limbaugh separately disagreed with aspects of the ruling on retroactive punitive damages and the private MPA cause of action, respectively.