[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff and Defendant share a relationship whereby:(a) Plaintiff reposes trust and confidence in Defendant, and(b) Defendant undertakes such trust and assumes a duty to advise, counsel and/or protect Plaintiff;
2. Defendant breaches its duties to Plaintiff; and
3. Plaintiff suffers damages.

The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are not fixed as the claim may arise from virtually any case where one party accepts the trust and assumes the duty to protect a weaker party. See, e.g., Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 420-421 (1927).

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff and Defendant share a relationship whereby:(a) Plaintiff reposes trust and confidence in Defendant, and(b) Defendant undertakes such trust and assumes a duty to advise, counsel and/or protect Plaintiff;
2. Defendant breaches its duties to Plaintiff; and
3. Plaintiff suffers damages.

The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are not fixed as the claim may arise from virtually any case where one party accepts the trust and assumes the duty to protect a weaker party. See, e.g., Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 420-421 (1927).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348, 353 (Fla. 2002).

First District: Cassedy v. Alland Investments Corp., 128 So.3d 976, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Columbia Bank v. Turbeville, 143 So.3d 964, 970  (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Second District: Rocco v. Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty & Hooker, P.A., 32 So.3d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Third District: Mejia v. Egleston, 319 So.3d 159 (Mem), 160 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); MP, LLC v. Sterling Holding, LLC, 231 So.3d 517, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing elements of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty).

Fourth District: All Purpose Title, LLC v. Knobloch, 397 So. 3d 85, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Guarino v. Mandel, 327 So.3d 853, 861-62 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2021); Taubenfeld v. Lasko, 324 So.3d 529, 537-38 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2021); Reed v. Long, 111 So. 3d 237, 239-240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Fifth District: Yaeger v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 335 So.3d 772, 773 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2022); Brouwer v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 2022 WL 722914, *1 (Fla. 5^th DCA Mar. 11, 2022); Sola v. Markel, 320 So.3d 326, 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); LeBlanc v. Acevedo, 258 So.3d 555, 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Med. & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. v. Oppenheim, 981 F.3d 983, 989 (11th Cir. 2020); Knezevich v. Carter, 805 F. App’x 717, 726 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: Allen v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 24-CV-21230, 2024 WL 2976757, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:24-CV-21230-KMM, 2024 WL 3616004 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2024); Balesia Techs., Inc. v. Calvo, 2023 WL 3778271, *5-10 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2023); McCray v. Mia. Dade Cnty. Pub. Sch., 2023 WL 2414050, *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2023); Bancor Grp. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 2022 WL 18542325, *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2022).

Middle District: Rutstein v. Viva 5 Group, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 3d 1189, 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2025); Huang v. TriNet HR III, Inc., 2023 WL 3092626, *11 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2023); Stengl v. L3Harris Techs., Inc., 2023 WL 2633333, *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2023); Location 24, LLC v. Drs. Same Day Surgery Ctr., Inc., 2023 WL 2931458, *17 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2023).

Northern District: Steward v. Applied Genetic Techs. Corp., No. 1:23-CV-231-AW-ZCB, 2024 WL 3567012, at *3 (N.D. Fla. June 26, 2024)(explaining when a fiduciary duty is created); In re Rudnick, No. 20-40124-KKS, 2021 WL 1347548, at *7 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2021); Walters v. Flag Credit Union & Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc., No. 4:13cv241–RH/CAS, 2014 WL 684677, at *2 (N.D. Fla. February 21, 2014).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) The parties did not enter a fiduciary relationship, but rather conducted business in an arm’s length transaction in which there is no duty to protect the other party or disclose facts which the other party could have discovered by its own diligence. See Watkins v. NCNB Nat. Bank, N.A., 622 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1994); Baron v. Acasta Capital, No. 16-25118-Scola, 2017 WL 3084416, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2017); CDG Int’l Corp. v. Q Capital Strategies, LLC, No. 17-23902-CIV, 2018 WL 278891, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2018); Steward v. Applied Genetic Techs. Corp., No. 1:23-CV-231-AW-ZCB, 2024 WL 3567012, at *3 (N.D. Fla. June 26, 2024).

(4) The Defendant’s alleged actions followed full disclosure to and the consent of the Plaintiff. See Avila South Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599, 606-607 (Fla. 1977).

(5) A fiduciary relationship arises only where a party affirmatively accepts or undertakes the duties of a fiduciary. See Harris v. Zeuch, 103 Fla. 183, 137 So. 135, 138-139 (1931).

(6) A bank and its customers generally deal at arm’s-length as creditor and debtor, and a fiduciary relationship is not presumed. See Bldg. Educ. Corp. v. OceanBank, 982 So. 2d 37, 40–41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) but see Barnett Bank of West Fla. v. Hooper, 498 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1986) (holding “where a bank becomes involved in a transaction with a customer with whom it has established a relationship of trust and confidence, and it is a transaction from which the bank is likely to benefit at the customer’s expense, the bank may be found to have assumed a duty to disclose facts material to the transaction …”).

(7) The delayed discovery doctrine does not toll the running of the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim. See Zainulabeddin v. Univ. of S. Fl. Board of Trustees, No. 8:16-cv-637-T-30TGW, 2017 WL 5202998, at *11 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017).

(8) Recovery against personal representatives for Breach of Fiduciary Duty is limited to net losses resulting from breach. Damages should put the plaintiff in the same position as if the fiduciary duty was never breached. If a personal representative's breach of fiduciary duty results in pecuniary advantage to the plaintiff as well as harm, the plaintiff should recover the sum of harm caused by the breach minus the sum of gain caused by the breach. § 733.609, Fla. Stat. Ann.; Brush v. Coppelli, 407 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025); Kinchla v. Ran Investments, LLC, 397 So. 3d 1064, 1067 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

[/MM_Access_Decision]