Fraudulent inducement—also known as fraud in the inducement—is a tort (wrongful act) claim or cause of action recognized in some states for fraud that occurs when one party to a contract intentionally misrepresents a material fact—usually regarding the risks, duties, or obligations involved—that another party to the contract reasonably relies on, causing the second party to enter into a contract it would not have agreed to if not for the fraudulent representation, and causing harm (damages or losses) to the party who reasonably relied on the misrepresentation.

Because fraudulent inducement combines elements of contract and tort law it is sometimes referred to as a "contort" claim or cause of action. In states that recognize a fraudulent inducement cause of action, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit and recover damages.

But a party who made an intentional misrepresentation may avoid liability if the other party contractually disclaimed any reliance on the first party’s fraudulent representations (a disclaimer of reliance provision in the contract). Whether a party is liable in any particular case depends on the contract’s language and the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

In Ohio, fraudulent inducement is recognized as a cause of action when one party to a contract intentionally misrepresents a material fact, leading another party to enter into the contract based on that misrepresentation. The misrepresented fact must be one that the defrauded party reasonably relied upon, and it must result in harm or damages to that party. This cause of action is a blend of contract and tort law, sometimes referred to as a 'contort' claim. To establish a claim for fraudulent inducement in Ohio, the plaintiff must prove the elements of fraud, including a misrepresentation of fact, knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury. However, the presence of a disclaimer of reliance provision in a contract may affect the outcome of a fraudulent inducement claim. Such a provision can potentially shield the misrepresenting party from liability if it can be shown that the other party agreed not to rely on representations outside of the contract. The enforceability of such disclaimers depends on the specific language of the contract and the circumstances of the case. Ohio courts will consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the disclaimer is enforceable and whether the plaintiff has a valid claim for fraudulent inducement.