Hunter V. Guardian Life Ins: Case Study

to show: (A) there was a purported fiduciary relationship; or (B) the relationship was one of subjugation or “dominion and influence.” Each of these deficiencies alone necessitates a dismissal of Dr. Stout’s constructive fraud cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court has explained the elements necessary to maintain a constructive fraud cause of action:
A constructive fraud complaint must allege facts and circumstances (1) which created the relation of trust and confidence, and (2) led up to and surrounded the consummation of the transaction in which defendant is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of trust to the hurt of plaintiff. Further, an essential element of constructive fraud is that defendants sought to benefit themselves in the transaction. Put simply, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, and (2) a breach of that duty.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 162 N.C.App. 477, 482, 593 S.E.2d 595, 599 (2004) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court has described “fiduciary duty,” and the limitations of its application to employment situations, as follows:
For a breach of fiduciary duty to exist, there must first be a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Such a relationship has been broadly defined by this Court as one in which there has been a special confidence reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing confidence and it extends to any possible case in which a fiduciary relationship exists in fact, and in which there is confidence reposed on one side, and resulting domination and influence on the other. However, the broad parameters accorded the term have been specifically limited in the context of employment situations. Under the general rule, the relation of employer and employee is not one of those regarded as