ILNews

Judges: Integration clause doesn’t preclude introduction of parol evidence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held Tuesday that in the absence of a factual inquiry, the mere presence of an integration clause doesn’t preclude a party from introducing parol evidence that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the agreement as a whole. The decision came in a dispute involving a settlement agreement that one party sought to invalidate based on claims of fraudulent inducement.

Judson Atkinson Candies Inc. and Kenray Associates Inc. settled two lawsuits through an agreement that required Kenray to pursue its insurer for coverage of Atkinson’s claims that Kenray failed to satisfy certain technology agreements and representations. But after Kenray’s insurer Hoosier Insurance Co. won judgments that it did not have to provide coverage for Atkinson’s claims, Atkinson alleged that it had been fraudulently induced to enter into the agreement by relying on oral representations made by Kenray that its insurer would cover the claims when in fact it already knew it would not.

As part of the settlement, the parties entered into a covenant not to execute, which contained language the District Court concluded was an integration clause: “The parties agree this agreement represents the parties’ sole agreement.”

Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. held that because the covenant contained an unambiguous integration clause, parol evidence could not be considered to vary the terms of the agreement. But if Atkinson could show there was fraud in the inducement specific to the integration clause, then it may still be able to circumvent the parol evidence rule and prevail on its claim.  

“The question before us then lies at the intersection of … two legal principles. To wit, where a party to a contract alleges fraudulent inducement and the contract in question has a valid integration clause, must the party demonstrate that it was fraudulently induced to agree to the integration clause itself before it can rely upon prior representations to vitiate the contract, or is it sufficient for a party to show that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract as a whole? Relying upon Circle Centre(Dev. Co. v. Y/G Ind., L.P., 762 N.E.2d 176, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), the district court found that, before Atkinson could invoke any parol evidence, it had to show that it had been fraudulently induced to agree to the integration clause itself. Because we believe that this is too narrow a reading of Indiana law, we reverse,” wrote Judge John Z. Lee, of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

“The imposition of an inflexible rule that would require a party claiming fraudulent inducement to demonstrate that he or she was fraudulently induced to agree to the integration clause itself would unreasonably restrict the trial court’s ability to conduct the factual analysis that the Indiana Supreme Court requires,” he continued in Judson Atkinson Candies, Incorporated v. Kenray Associates, Incorporated, Charles A. McGee and Kenneth J. McGee, 12-1035, 12-1036.

The Circuit Court ruled that by invoking a categorical rule without conducting a case-by-case analysis,  the magistrate judge’s decision is inconsistent with the Indiana Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind. 1986) and the Indiana Court of Appeals decisions of Prall v. Ind. Nat’l Bank, 627 N.E.2d 1374, 1378 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), and its progeny.  

The case goes back to the District Court for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT