ROBERT P. BANKS, III, PETITIONER,
v.
PUBLIC STORAGE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES, VII, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY AND THROUGH B. WAYNE HUGHES, AS ITS GENERAL PARTNER, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A party cannot contractually limit liability in a contract induced by fraud.
Petitioner sued Respondent for fraud in the inducement and rescission of a contract. The circuit court transferred the case to county court, finding i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contractual Limitation Of Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Robert P. Banks, III, filed a two count civil action against Respondent, Public Storage Management, Inc. One count was for fraud in the inducement and the other count was for rescission, cancellation and restitution of a contract. The circuit court determined that it lacked jurisdiction, because the contract limited damages to $5,000, and transferred the case to county court. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner asserts that when fraudulent inducement is alleged, the language of the contract cannot be used to limit the amount of damages. Respondent'contends that the contractual provision limiting liability is valid and survives petitioner’s claim for fraudulent inducement.
A party may not contractually limit liability in a contract induced by fraud. See, e.g. Burton v. Linotyne Co., 556 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). “Fraud is an intentional tort and thus not subject to the cathartic effect of the exculpatory clauses found in contracts.” L. Luria & Son, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 460 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We find that it was error for the circuit court to transfer the case to county court for lack of jurisdiction based on a limiting clause in the contract alleged to be fraudulently induced. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the cause in circuit court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haisfield v. Fleming, Haile & Shaw, P.A., 819 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In the instant case, it was questionable as to whether the exclusive remedy clause would have been enforced where Haisfield asserted Peabe/s misrepresentation amounted to fraud. See Banks v. Pub. Storage Mgmt., Inc., 585 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We have also considered Haisfield’s assertion that there are issues of fact as to what was said to him and as to what instructions he gave his attorneys. However, upon our review of the record, it is clear that Haisfield’s conte…
-
Ripkurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC (S.D. Fla. 2021)…t is relevant that Plaintiff alleges fraudulent inducement, which is an intentional tort. See APR Energy, LLC v. Pakistan Power Res., LLC, No. 3:08-CV-961-J-25MCR, 2009 WL 10670782, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2009); Banks v. Pub. Storage Mgmt., Inc., 585 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). There are two applicable tests for determining whether purposeful availment has occurred in a case involving intentional torts. Louis Vuitton, 736 F. 3d at 1356. First, under the effects test, a single tortious act can es…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rogers, 556 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- L. Luria & SON, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 460 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)