ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche

Decision Date21 May 1997
Docket NumberML-LEE,No. 24676,24676
Citation489 S.E.2d 470,327 S.C. 238
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesACQUISITION FUND, L.P., Respondent, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, Petitioner. . Heard

Jefferson V. Smith, Jr., of Carter, Smith, Merriam, Rogers & Traxler, P.A., Greer; and James T. Williams, Jr. and S. Leigh Rodenbough, IV, both of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.

Wilbum Brewer, Jr., Marcus A. Manos, and Jennifer J. Aldrich, all of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, L.L.P., Columbia; and John D. Hughes and David A. Martland, both of Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar, Boston, MA, for Respondent.

MOORE, Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reported at 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618 (Ct.App.1995). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS 1

Petitioner Deloitte & Touche (Accountant) was retained by Emb-Tex Corporation to audit its financial statements from 1982 through 1988. Respondent ML-Lee Acquisition Fund (Investor) made two investments in Emb-Tex, one in 1988 for $16 million and one in 1990 for $2 million. Investor subsequently commenced this action against Accountant for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation alleging it suffered a loss because its agent, Thomas H. Lee Company (Advisor), relied on the audit reports and Accountant's 1988 "comfort letter" in recommending the investments in Emb-Tex.

As Investor learned in 1991, Emb-Tex's financial statements for 1985 and after overstated its inventory. Consequently, the audit reports prepared by Accountant for those years did not reflect Emb-Tex's true financial condition when Investor made its investments in 1988 and 1990. Investor alleged Accountant knew or should have known about the inventory overstatements.

The master granted Accountant summary judgment on both causes of action. On the professional negligence claim, the master found Investor could not maintain such an action because Investor was not Accountant's client. This holding was not appealed. On the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the master adopted the standard of liability set forth in § 552 of the Restatement (2d) of Torts (1977). 2 Applying this standard, the master held (1) Accountant owed Investor no duty regarding either investment and (2) Investor did not justifiably rely on the information supplied by Accountant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed in part the master's ruling that Accountant had no duty to Investor. It found in pertinent part that Investor was Accountant's client for purposes of the 1990 investment and accordingly owed Investor a duty to disclose information regarding Emb-Tex's inventory overstatement for that year. The Court of Appeals also reversed the master's holding there was no justifiable reliance and held the reliance of an agent is sufficient to establish liability to a principal for a negligent misrepresentation.

ISSUES

1. Did Accountant have a duty to disclose the current inventory overstatement?

2. Is the reliance of an agent sufficient to establish justifiable reliance?

DISCUSSION
1. Duty

The Court of Appeals held Accountant owed Investor a duty to disclose Emb-Tex's current inventory overstatement, not under § 552, 3 but based on the conclusion Investor was Accountant's client for purposes of the 1990 investment. 4

There was no appeal of the master's ruling that Investor was not Accountant's client. This unappealed ruling is the law of the case, In re: Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 468 S.E.2d 651 (1996), and should not have been reconsidered by the Court of Appeals. Since it is the law of the case that Investor was not Accountant's client, we reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling that Accountant had a duty to disclose.

2. Reliance

To establish liability under Restatement § 552, the party seeking to recover for a negligent misrepresentation must show he justifiably relied on the information communicated by the accountant. The master held that in order to establish justifiable reliance, a plaintiff must prove it relied directly on the information provided by the accountant. He concluded the facts showed at best only that Investor's agent, Advisor, relied on the information in recommending these investments but Investor's actual decision-makers did not. Accordingly, he held there was no justifiable reliance as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals found this ruling inconsistent with general agency law. We agree.

It is well-settled that the authorized acts of an agent are the acts of the principal. Crim v. Hutton, 298 S.C. 448, 381 S.E.2d 492 (1989); Carver v. Morrow, 213 S.C. 199, 48 S.E.2d 814 (1948); Palmer v. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., 197 S.C. 379, 15 S.E.2d 655 (1941). The Court of Appeals properly applied this general rule to conclude the reliance of an agent acting within the scope of his agency is the reliance of the principal. See also Restatement (2d) of Agency, § 315 comment b ("One making a misrepresentation to an agent in order to obtain a contract with the principal is subject to liability if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • WILLIAMSBURG RURAL v. WILLIAMSBURG
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 2003
    ...156 (2003); Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 338 S.C. 171, 525 S.E.2d 869 (2000); ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997); Sandy Springs Water Co. v. Department of Health and Envtl. Control, 324 S.C. 177, 478 S.E.2d 60 (1996); Re......
  • Floyd v. Floyd
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 13, 2005
    ...the December 24 order finding him in contempt. An unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case. ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997). Therefore, the December 24 order which found Laurens in contempt and which was not appealed is th......
  • 86 Hawai'i 301, Kohala Agriculture v. Deloitte & Touche
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 1997
    ...Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618, 627 (App.1995), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 489 S.E.2d 470 (S.C.1997); Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 822 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tenn.1991) (adopted test modifying section 552); Federal Land Bank Ass'n......
  • Noland v. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 24, 2009
    ...not file a cross-motion for discretionary review in this Court of the adverse ruling [below]."); Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) ("[An] unappealed ruling is the law of the The second dispositive ruling made by the circuit court was t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 books & journal articles
  • Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery
    • United States
    • South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2019 Ed.) South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure V. Depositions and Discovery
    • Invalid date
    ...ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618, 635 (Ct. App. 1995), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997). Construed To prevent a trial from becoming a surprise or a guessing game for either party, discovery involves full ......
  • C. Elements Defined
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) 34 Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Invalid date
    ...499 (S.C. 2010) (misrepresentations as to matters of law are not actionable). [18] ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997). See also Gecy v. S.C. Bank & Trust, 422 S.C. 509, 812 S.E.2d 750 (Ct. App. 2018) (Restatement language does not apply t......
  • Rule 56. Summary Judgment
    • United States
    • South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2019 Ed.) South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure VII. Judgment
    • Invalid date
    ...ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618, 624 (Ct. App. 1995), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997). "The Rule [12(b)(6)] specifically provides for conversion, provided the parties, upon compliance with the notice pr......
  • C. Elements Defined
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) 12 Constructive Fraud
    • Invalid date
    ...also ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1995), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997).[17] Jacobson v. Yaschik, 249 S.C. 577, 155 S.E.2d 601, 605 (1967) (duty to disclose exists where it arises from pre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT