Grease Monkey International, Inc. v. Montoya
1995 Colo. LEXIS 656, 19 Brief Times Rptr. 1432, 904 P.2d 468 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A principal is liable for an agent's fraud when the principal puts the agent in a position that enables the agent to commit the fraud while acting within their apparent authority, even if the agent acts solely for their own purposes.
Facts:
- Arthur Sensenig was the President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chairman of the Board for Grease Monkey, with broad authority to act as its agent, including raising capital through loans under $500,000 without board approval.
- Nick and Aver Montoya had a long-standing relationship with Sensenig, whom they knew from his previous career as a banker and trusted for investment advice.
- From 1983 to 1991, Sensenig solicited payments from the Montoyas under the false pretense that they were investments in Grease Monkey.
- Sensenig falsely told the Montoyas that Grease Monkey, as a new company, was using his personal bank account as the corporate account for these investments.
- To further his scheme, Sensenig gave Nick Montoya a tour of the Grease Monkey offices, showed him a promotional slideshow, and provided mailings on company letterhead and promotional items like hats and pens.
- After the Montoyas made payments, Sensenig provided them with promissory notes and delivered interest payments along with charts showing Grease Monkey's purported success.
- Sensenig did not invest any of the Montoyas' funds in Grease Monkey; instead, he used all the money for his own personal benefit, and Grease Monkey never received any of it.
Procedural Posture:
- Nick and Aver Montoya filed a complaint against Grease Monkey in a Colorado state trial court for claims including fraud and misrepresentation.
- Following a trial to the court, the trial court found in favor of the Montoyas on their fraud and misrepresentation claims and entered judgment against Grease Monkey.
- Grease Monkey, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a principal liable for the fraud of its agent when the agent uses the position and apparent authority conferred by the principal to commit the fraud, even though the agent acts solely for their own benefit and the principal receives none of the fraudulent proceeds?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Erickson
Yes. A principal is liable for the fraud of its agent under the doctrine of apparent authority when the principal places the agent in a position that enables the fraud. The court distinguished this case, which involves an agent's fraud and is analyzed under apparent authority principles (Restatement (Second) of Agency § 261), from its precedent in Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, which involved a servant's intentional tort (sexual misconduct) analyzed under the master-servant doctrine of respondeat superior. Under respondeat superior, the servant must act, at least in part, to further the employer's business. In contrast, under the apparent authority doctrine applicable to fraud, the agent's purely personal motive is irrelevant so long as the third party reasonably believes the agent is acting for the principal. Grease Monkey placed Sensenig in a high-ranking position that facilitated the fraud, making the transaction appear regular and causing the Montoyas to reasonably rely on his authority. The policy is that when one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss should fall on the one who empowered the wrongdoer.
Concurring - Justice Mullarkey
Yes. While agreeing that Grease Monkey is liable under the apparent authority doctrine of Restatement § 261, this opinion disagrees with the majority's rationale for distinguishing the Moses precedent. The crucial distinction is not between a 'servant' and a 'non-servant agent,' but rather the nature of the tort committed. The doctrine of respondeat superior applies to physical torts, whereas the doctrine of apparent authority applies to tortious representations like fraud, regardless of whether the agent is a servant or not. Sensenig committed fraud by misrepresentation, making apparent authority the correct framework because the Montoyas relied on his purported authority to enter into transactions for Grease Monkey. The case is properly decided based on the type of tort, not the specific classification of the agent.
Analysis:
This decision formally applies Restatement (Second) of Agency § 261 in Colorado, clarifying the distinction between vicarious liability under respondeat superior and liability based on apparent authority. It establishes that a principal can be held liable for the fraudulent acts of a high-ranking agent even when the company received no benefit and the agent acted for purely personal gain. This places a significant burden on businesses to diligently supervise agents vested with substantial authority, as the risk of an agent's fraud falls on the company that empowered them, not the innocent third party who reasonably relies on that agent's position. The case reinforces the legal policy of protecting the public in its dealings with corporate agents.
Unlock the full brief for Grease Monkey International, Inc. v. Montoya