|
3829 Upon taking control of a customer's phone service from another carrier, a telephone service provider's duty of disclosure to the customer is determined by applicable sections of the Public Utilities Code, and failure to make disclosure as required may constitute a fraudulent concealment; the fraudulent intent required for fraudulent concealment is that defendant intend to conceal, not necessarily that defendant intend to harm plaintiff; it is not necessarily unreasonable for a consumer to pay a bill without carefully reading it.CitationLOVEJOY v AT&T (Slam Concealment) 119 CA4 151 [See: PUC 2889.5; Lovejoy v AT&T 92 CA4 85, T/AT 10/01; Reed v King 145 CA3 261]
|
|
