MAT Inc. v. American Tower Asset Sub, LLC.

Evidence of privileged communications pertaining to alleged fraudulent concealment meets the threshold provided by State v. Bray. 281 Or App 584, 616, 383 P3d 883 (2016), aff'd 363 Or 226, 422 P3d 250 (2018).

American Tower Asset Sub, LLC (American Tower) appealed a judgment in favor of MAT, Inc. (MAT) on a breach of contract claim. The claim was brought after the statute of limitations had run but was allowed to continue because MAT argued that American Tower had fraudulently concealed the breach. On appeal, American Tower made multiple assignments of error, mainly, that the trial court's refusal to conduct an in camera review of communications may have proven that American Tower knew or should have known that it had a cause of action before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Evidence of privileged communications pertaining to alleged fraudulent concealment meets the threshold provided by State v. Bray. 281 Or App 584, 616, 383 P3d 883 (2016), aff'd 363 Or 226, 422 P3d 250 (2018). The Court held that the evidence of American Tower’s fraudulent concealment required presentment to a jury. Further, the trial court erred by not holding an in camera review of the privileged communications because it improperly applied the Bray standard. Vacated and remanded for the trial court to determine whether to conduct in camera review.