## Facts

- Leonard J. Verni was a student at Cleveland Chiropractic College in its Doctor of Chiropractic program and expected to graduate in 1999.
- An anonymous student reported to the academic dean that Verni was selling copies of a dermatology exam before its scheduled administration and provided a copy of the test.
- College administrators investigated and dismissed Verni for academic misconduct under handbook rules prohibiting possession or use of evaluation materials in advance of initial administration.
- Verni pursued the handbook’s internal appeal process; an appeals committee upheld his permanent dismissal.
- Verni sued Cleveland Chiropractic College and Dr. Aleksandr Makarov (the dermatology instructor).
- At trial, the case went to the jury on: (1) breach of contract against Cleveland based on student materials; (2) fraudulent misrepresentation against Cleveland about “due process”/appeal procedures; (3) breach of contract against Makarov based on his employment contract and faculty handbook duties; and (4) fraudulent nondisclosure against Cleveland.
- The jury found for Verni on fraudulent misrepresentation against Cleveland ($20,000) and breach of contract against Makarov ($10,000), and for Cleveland on the other claims.
- The trial court granted Cleveland judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on fraudulent misrepresentation, setting aside the $20,000 award; appeals followed.

## Issues

1. Whether a student is an intended third-party beneficiary of a faculty member’s employment contract (including faculty handbook obligations) and may sue the faculty member for breach.
2. Whether the evidence supported a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against a private college based on alleged misstatements about disciplinary “due process” and appeal procedures, including proof of reasonable, detrimental reliance.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court held Verni was not an intended third-party beneficiary of Dr. Makarov’s employment contract and therefore could not enforce it.
- The Court set aside the verdict against Makarov on the breach-of-contract theory as a matter of law.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s JNOV for Cleveland on fraudulent misrepresentation because Verni failed to prove reasonable, detrimental reliance on any false representation regarding disciplinary procedures.
- As a result, Verni did not recover on the fraud claim against Cleveland or the contract claim against Makarov.

## Legal Principles

- A nonparty may enforce a contract in Missouri only if the contract clearly expresses an intent to benefit that third party; incidental benefits are insufficient.
- General references in an employment relationship to compliance with institutional policies affecting students do not, without clear contractual language, create enforceable rights in individual students.
- Fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof of a false material representation, a right to rely, actual reasonable reliance, and resulting damages.
- Alleged shortcomings in institutional disciplinary processes do not establish fraud absent specific proof that the claimant reasonably relied on a misrepresentation and suffered detriment because of that reliance.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a dismissed student’s attempt to sue a professor on the professor’s employment contract as a third-party beneficiary and upheld judgment for the college on a fraud theory because the student did not prove reasonable, detrimental reliance on alleged misrepresentations about disciplinary procedures.


Verni v. Cleveland Chiropractic Coll., 212 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. 2007) (en banc)