Plаintiffs appeal as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, apparently pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10). We affirm.
This is a case of an investment gone bad. In July 1983, plaintiffs invested $40,000 from a lump-sum workers’ compensation benefits settlement in the Damson 1983-84 Oil and Gas Income Fund, a limited partnership, on the advice of Steven Malmquist, a broker at defendant, First of Michigan Corporation. Plaintiff Greg Webb testified in a deposition that he made the investment because of the representation that it was risk-free and would yield at least eighteen percent interest. In the months following their investment, plaintiffs became concerned that performance was not as had been "guaranteed.” On several occasions, plaintiffs spoke with Roger Prince, the broker who took over the account from Malmquist. On these occasions, they expressed concern abоut the soundness of the investment. At no time, however, did plaintiffs decide to terminate the investment, but, rather, they played the odds to see what the future would bring. By 1989, plaintiffs’ investment decreased in value to such an extent that it could be classified as worthless, promрting them to file this action.
Plaintiffs’ complaint named broker Steven *472 Malmquist as a party, in addition to defendant corporation. Malmquist was never served, however, and thus is nоt a party to this appeal. Rather than file an answer, defendant First of Michigan moved for summary disposition of the four-count complaint. The trial court granted the motion with regard to plaintiffs’ fourth claim, which alleged a violation of the Consumer Prоtection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq.; MSA 19.418(1) et seq., but denied the motion without prejudice with regard to the remaining claims, which alleged fraud and misrepresentatiоn, unsuitability of investment, and breach of an implied contract. In so ruling, the trial court indicated that material issues of fact existеd regarding whether plaintiffs ratified the actions of defendant’s agents by retaining their investment in spite of indications that it was not performing as promised.
Upon completion of discovery, defendant renewed its motion for summary disposition with regard to the remaining three counts pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10), arguing that there existed no factual dispute that plaintiffs had ratified the alleged prior misdеeds of Steven Malmquist. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that a genuine issue of fact does exist regarding whether their conduct constitutes ratification such that summary disposition should have been denied. Evеn were we to agree with plaintiffs that summary disposition based on ratification was improper, we nonetheless conclude that the trial court reached the correct result in dismissing the complaint, but for different reasons.
A review of plaintiffs’ cоmplaint indicates that their claims against defendant are based on events surrounding the initial investment in Damson Oil *473 and Gas. The essenсe of the complaint is one for fraud occurring when plaintiffs were deciding on an investment strategy. They claim that they had bеen misinformed about the nature of the risks involved and the interest potential of the Damson investment opportunity. Plaintiff Greg Webb testified in a deposition that Malmquist stated that the investment was "risk-free” with a "guaranteed” eighteen percent interest return ratе. Plaintiffs alleged that these statements were knowingly false when made and were made with the intent that plaintiffs make their investment in rеliance upon them.
In general, to constitute actionable fraud plaintiffs must establish that (1) defendant made a material rеpresentation; (2) it was false; (3) when it was made defendant knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) defendant made it with the intent that it should be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) plaintiff did act in reliance upon it; аnd (6) plaintiff thereby suffered injury.
Hi-Way Motor Co v Int’l Harvester Co,
Viewing the facts most favorably to plaintiffs, there appears to be no dispute that defendant, through its broker Steven Malmquist, made representations regarding the nature of the risk involved and the return investment "guaranteed.” The questiоn becomes, however, whether these statements relate to past or existing facts and are thus actionable, or whеther they relate to a future promise or expectation that does not constitute fraud. See Hi-Way Motor Co, supra. With this in mind, we have little difficulty concluding that the statement regarding the eighteen percent interest return rate was nothing more than a promise of *474 future benefit that cannot, by law, constitute fraud.
The statement that the investment was "risk-free,” however, is more problematic. In the context in which it was made, the statement by the investment broker has the appearance of a mere expression of professional opinion or of "puffing,” neithеr of which would be actionable. See
Hayes Construction Co v Silverthorn,
We affirm the order of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for the reasons expressed above. Under the circumstances, we find it unnecessary to address the issue of ratification.
Affirmed.