[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). Yamashita v. Merck & Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17890 (S.D. Fla. February 13, 2012). 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).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 1985)

First District: Arlington Pebble Creek, LLC v. Campus Edge Condo. Assoc., Inc., 232 So.3d 502, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 764 So.2d 677, 682 (Fla.1st DCA 2000).

Second District: Grimes v. Lottes, 241 So.3d 892, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Parham v. Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc., 35 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), rev. dismissed, 38 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 2010).

Third District: Fixel v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So.2d 204, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)

Fourth District: Madness, L.P. v. DiTocco Konstruction, Inc., 873 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

Fifth District: Winfield Inv., LLC v. Pascal-Gaston Inv., LLC, 254 So.3d 589, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Townsend v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1117 (11th Cir. 1999)

Southern District: Triton II, LLC v. Randazzo, No. 18-cv-61469-BLOOM/Valle, 2018 WL 4932342, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018); Gold Krown Fund, LLC v. Shapiro, No. 16-23525-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN, 2018 WL 3412869, at *8 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2018).

Middle District: SCCY Indus., LLC v. Jannuzzo, No. 6:17-cv-1495-Orl-31KRS, 2018 WL 3657570, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2018); Kendall v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 6:17-cv-1888-Orl-37-GJK, 2018 WL 3343239, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2018).

Northern District: Paylan v. Teitelbaum, No. 1:15–cv–159–MW–GRJ, 2018 WL 1189487, at *15 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2018); Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225, 1237 (N.D. Fla. 1991).

FLORIDA STATUTES

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

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Fraud - Fraud in the Performance

(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).

(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.

(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).

(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) “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).

(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. Giallo v. New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 855 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); 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).

(12) 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).

[/MM_Access_Decision]