[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). The economic loss doctrine bars claims for fraud in the performance, but not claims for fraud in the inducement. See Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225, 1238 (N.D.Fla. 1991). 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. Ass’n, Inc., 232 So. 3d 502, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Howard v. Murray, 184 So.3d 1155, 1167 n.23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).


Second District: Pirate’s Treasure, Inc. v. City of Dunedin, 277 So.3d 1124, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Grimes v. Lottes, 241 So. 3d 892, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Third District: Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc. v. Port Royal Prop., LLC, 271 So. 3d 111, 114 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Coral Gables Distrib., Inc. v. Milich, 992 So.2d 302, 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).


Fourth District: Blumstein v. Sports Immortals, Inc., 67 So. 3d 437, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Bankers Mut. Capital Corp. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 784 So. 2d 485, 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).


Fifth District: Dziegielewski v. Scalero, 352 So. 3d 931, 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Simon v. Celebration Co., 883 So. 2d 826, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Townsend v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Godelia v. Doe 1, 881 F.3d 1309, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018); BVS Acquisition Co., LLC v. Brown, 649 F. App’x 651, 659 n.4 (11th Cir. 2016).


Southern District: Blow v. Carnival Corp., 2023 WL 3686840, *6 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2023); Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2023 WL 3171963, *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2023); Serra-Cruz v. Carnival Corp., 400 F.Supp. 3d 1364, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2019); Doria v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 393 F.Supp. 3d 1141, 1145 (S.D. Fla. 2019).

Middle District: Macuhealth, LP v. Vision Elements, INC., 2023 WL 3863341, *10 (M.D. Fla. June 7, 2023); Stumbo v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 2023 WL 2328982, *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2023); Weinstock v. Harvey, No. 8:19-CV-2979-T-33AEP, 2020 WL 4573091, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2020); Bicz v. Colliers Int’l Detroit, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-1840-T-17CPT, 2019 WL 4714373, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2019).


Northern District: Allen v. Lyons & Farrar P.A., 2022 WL 11625752, *8 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2022); Muy v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No.: 4:19cv14-MW/CAS, 2019 WL 8161749, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2019); Rogers v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 268 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1312 (N.D. Fla. 2003) (stating that under Florida law the elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim are essentially same as those for fraudulent misrepresentation, except that, instead of knowledge of falsity of representation, plaintiff need only prove that representor reasonably should have known of statement’s falsity); see also Cmty. Mar. Park Assoc., v. Mar. Park Dev. Partners., No. 3:11cv60/MCR/CJK, 2011 WL 2790185 (N.D. Fla. July 14, 2011) (justifiable reliance is an element to negligent misrepresentation claims).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts ‘ 525 (1977 Amendment

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation

(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); Int’l Schools Services, Inc. v. AAUG Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 10–62115–CIV, 2012 WL 5192265, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2012).

(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., — So.3d —, 2020 WL 1451990, *3 (Fla. March 25, 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. Cocoves v. Campbell, 819 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Ingram v. Butter, No. 14–21392–CIV–WILLIAMS, 2015 WL 9911314, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2015).

(11) In an arms-length transaction there is no duty imposed on either party to act for the benefit or protection of the other party, or to disclose facts that the other party could, by its own diligence, have discovered. See Carbiener v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., No. 3:13–cv–970–J–39PDB, 2014 WL 12610224, at *16 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2014); Caldwell v. Compass Entertainment Group LLC, 2015 WL 8772909 *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2015).

(12) A plaintiff may not rely on statements made by litigation adversaries to establish fraud claims. See Moriber v. Dreiling, 194 So.3d 369, 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).  (holding “plaintiff had no right to rely on any such representations, in view of the fact that the parties understood at all times that they were in hostile relations to each other”).

(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) Principles of comparative fault apply to negligent misrepresentation actions. See Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So. 2d 334, 339 (Fla. 1997).

[/MM_Access_Decision]