[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant made a false statement regarding a material fact;
2. Defendant knew or should have known the representation was false;
3. Defendant intended that the representation induce plaintiff to act on it; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages in justifiable reliance on the representation.

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. Defendant made a false statement regarding a material fact;
2. Defendant knew or should have known the representation was false;
3. Defendant intended that the representation induce plaintiff to act on it; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages in justifiable reliance on the representation.

The elements of claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the performance, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation are identical and differ only by the underlying facts supporting each claim. Compare Pulte Home Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 60 F.3d 734, 742 (11th Cir. 1995) (fraud in the inducement), with Baggett v. Electricians Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (negligent misrepresentation), and Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 1985) (fraudulent misrepresentation). Fraud is also known as the tort of deceit. See Crown Eurocars, Inc. v. Schropp, 636 So. 2d 30, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), aff’d, 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995).

“Justifiable reliance is not a necessary element of fraudulent misrepresentation.” Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010)(emphasis added).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2022 WL 805951, *4 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022); Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587, 595 (Fla. 2013).

First District: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Whitmire, 260 So.3d 536, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Sheridan v. Rennhack, 200 So.3d 255, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Second District: Pirate’s Treasure, Inc. v. City of Dunedin, 277 So.3d 1124, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); GEICO General Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 136 So. 3d 647, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Third District: Plastiquim v. Odebrecht Constr., Inc., 2022 WL  1231254, *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 27, 2022); Bailey v. Covington, 317 So.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ; Pritchard v. Levin, 305 So.3d 628, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ; Brooks v. Henry, 333 So.3d 298, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)

Fourth District: Good Air, Inc. v. Litecrete, Inc., 403 So. 3d 241, 243-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Gilison v. Flagler Bank, 303 So. 3d 999, 1002-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cong. Park Office II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 606, n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Fifth District: Corrigan v. Vargas, 277 So. 3d 642, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Townsend v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Omnipol, A.S. v. Multinational Def. Serv., LLC, 32 F.4^th 1298, 1307 (11^th Cir. 2022); Zarate v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 26 F.4th 1196, 1202-03 (11th Cir. 2022); Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Quality Diagnostic Health Care, Inc., 2021 WL 5157535, *2 (11^th Cir. Nov. 5, 2021); Kerruish v. Essex Holdings, Inc., 777 Fed. Appx. 285, 292 (11th Cir. 2019).

Southern District: Patagonia, Inc. v. Worn Out, LLC, 2023 WL 3172530, *7 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2023); Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Gomez-Cortes, 2023 WL 2432339, *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2023); Wang v. Revere Capital Mgmt., LLC, 2023 WL 2198570, *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2023); City of Miami v. Eli Lilly & Co. 2022 WL 198028, *8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2022).

Middle District: Nick Properties Group, Inc. v. Edmund Optics, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-643-MSS-UAM, 2024 WL 3580848, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 18, 2024); De Ford v. Koutoulas, 2023 WL 2709816, *10 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2023); Avvampato v. Int’l Keg Rental, LLC, 2022 WL 19404238, *8 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2022); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaRocca, 2022 WL 1401565, *9 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2022).

Northern District: Rashada v. Hathcock, No. 3:24-CV-219-MCR-HTC, 2025 WL 1043208, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025); Alt. Materials, LLC v. Monroe, 2023 WL 2410928, *8 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2023); Paylan v. Teitelbaum, 2016 WL 7974824, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2016); Black v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., Inc., No. 4:11cv539–WS., 2014 WL 1303656, at *10 (N.D. Fla. 2014).

FLORIDA REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 (1977 Amendment)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Fraud

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

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (four years); Dixon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 19-80022-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2019 WL 2866495, at *10 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2019).

(3) The statute of repose provides that a claim for fraud must be commenced “within 12 years after the date of the commission of the alleged fraud, regardless of the date the fraud was or should have been discovered”. See § 95.031(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gentile, 281 So.3d 493, 494 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Dixon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 19-80022-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2019 WL 2866495, at *10 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2019).

(4) Mere opinions or misrepresentations of law are not actionable. See e.g., Bailey v. Trenman, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O’Neil, 938 F. Supp. 825, 829 (S.D. Fla. 1996); MDVIP, Inc. v. Beber, 222 So.3d 555, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

(5) False statements regarding promised future action are not actionable unless the promisor had no intentions of performance at the time of the representation. See Thor Bear, Inc v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So. 2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); 940 Lincoln Road Assocs. LLC v. 940 Lincoln Road Enterps. Inc., 237 So.3d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

(6) Reliance on misrepresentations are unreasonable where the statements are contained in a subsequent written agreement between the parties. See Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1420, 1427 (S.D. Fla. 1996); Fin-S Tech, LLC v. Surf Hardware International-USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-80645, 2014 WL 12461349, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2014); Ferox, LLC v. ConSeal  Int’l, Inc., 175 F.Supp.3d 1363, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

(7) Waiver is a defense to fraud when the allegedly defrauded party had actual or imputed knowledge of the facts supporting the fraud claim. See Coral Gables Imported Motorcars, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., 673 F.2d 1234, 1240 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 (1983); BGW Design Ltd., Inc. v. Service America Corp., No. 10-20730-Civ, 2011 WL 13220382, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011).

(8) Fraudulent misrepresentations do not result from a seller’s puffery in stating opinions or commendations about a product’s value. See Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Baker v. Brunswick Corp., No. 2:17–cv–572–FtM–99MRM, 2018 WL 1947433, at *7 (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2018).

(9) Under the Independent Tort Doctrine, “It is a fundamental, long-standing common law principle that a plaintiff may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” Island Travel & Tours, Ltd., Co. v. MYR Independent, Inc., 300 So.3d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) citing Peebles v. Puig, 223 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Med-Stop, Inc. v. Vandutch, Inc., No. 23-CV-21875, 2025 WL 26731, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2025).

(10) To assert the defense of fraud, the party must allege with specificity the relevant facts and circumstances supporting the defense, as well as all of the essential elements of fraudulent conduct. Zikofsky v. Robby Vapor Systems, Inc., 846 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Meridian Trust Co. v. Batista, No. 17-23051-WILLIAMS, 2018 WL 4760277, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2018).

(11) A party cannot recover for fraudulent oral representations which are covered in or contradicted by a later written agreement. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gentile, 281 So.3d 493, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Fin-S Tech, LLC v. Surf Hardware International-USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-80645, 2014 WL 12461349, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2014); Giallo v. New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 855 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

(12) “If the [allegedly fraudulent] statements are ‘likely to mislead reasonable consumers,’ then it makes no difference if the statements are ‘technically or literally true.’” Zamber v. American Airlines Inc., 282 F.Supp.3d 1289, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (citation omitted).

(13) A plaintiff may assert a claim for fraud and breach of contract where the claim for fraudulent inducement is based on facts separate and distinct from the breach of contract claim and such tort (e.g., a species of fraud or negligent misrepresentation) is committed independently of the breach of contract. E.g., Tiara Condominium Assoc.’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 110 So.3d 399, 402-403 (Fla. 2013).

(14) “[W]hile ‘an express waiver of the right to maintain a fraud claim is all that is required to avoid liability for fraud,’ more than a mere disclaiming of the making of fraudulent representations or a reliance thereon is required to effectuate such a waiver; rather, the parties must agree that ‘even if a fraud “may have been committed,” such a claim may not be asserted.’” NM Residential, LLC v. Prospect Park Dev., LLC, 2022 WL 880594, *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 25, 2022) (quoting Billington v. Ginn-La Pine Island, Ltd., 192 So. 3d 77, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 4 So. 2d 689, 691 (1941))).

[/MM_Access_Decision]