HTP, LTD., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LINEAS AEREAS COSTARRICENSES, S.A., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Defendants appealed a fraud judgment entered against them in a settlement agreement dispute. The court affirmed, holding that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not barred by the economic loss rule, that the trial court properly rejected a jury instruction on unjustifiable reliance, and that the verdict form appropriately allowed the jury to consider fraud as a defense to the settlement agreement.
The court held that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not barred by the economic loss rule. The trial court properly rejected the defendants' unjustifiable reliance instruction because the plaintiffs relied on representations from an undisclosed agent, not the allegedly dishonest parties themselves. The trial court properly used a verdict form allowing the jury to consider fraud in the inducement as a defense to breach of the settlement agreement.
[1] Fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not barred by the economic loss rule.
[2] Reliance on representations made by an undisclosed agent may be justifiable, even when negotiating an existing controversy.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fraud in the inducement and deceit are independent torts for which compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered.”
Establishes that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not subject to the economic loss rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs and defendants entered into a settlement agreement. The defendants later disputed the settlement, claiming breach of contract. The plai…
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 Economic Loss Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants, Stephen H. Gamble, HTP, Ltd., and Tyler Corporation, appeal from an adverse final judgment. We affirm.
First, we find that the trial court properly ruled that the plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraud in the inducement was an independent tort that was not barred by the economic loss rule. Burton v. Linotype Co., 556 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990) (“Fraud in the inducement and deceit are independent torts for which compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered.”).
Second, the defendants contend that the trial court erred by rejecting the defendants’ proposed jury instruction regarding “unjustifiable reliance” that was prepared pursuant to Pieter Batcher Management, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 541 So. 2d 1334, 1335-36 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 549 So. 2d 1014 (FIa.1989) (“When negotiating or attempting to compromise an existing controversy over fraud and dishonesty, it is unreasonable to rely on representations made by the allegedly dishonest parties.”). We disagree.
The instant case is distinguishable from Pieter Bakker because the plaintiffs did not rely upon the representations of the allegedly dishonest parties themselves, rather the plaintiffs relied upon the representations of an undisclosed agent. Wilson v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States, 622 So. 2d 25, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that when the relationship between parties is amicable and not “plagued with distrust,” a party may not necessarily be unjustified in relying on the other party’s representations). Therefore, we find that the trial court properly rejected the defendants’ proposed jury instruction for “unjustifiable reliance.”
Lastly, the defendants contend that the trial court erred by rejecting their proposed jury verdict form and instead, using a verdict form that instructed the jury to determine whether the defendants had fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to enter into the settlement agreement and if so, to proceed to the question of damages, thereby ignoring the defendants’ claim for breach of the settlement agreement. We find that the trial court properly rejected the defendants’ proposed verdict form. Additionally, we find that the verdict form used was appropriate where the defendants had brought a claim for breach of contract, and the plaintiffs had raised the affirmative defense of fraud in the inducement. Poneleit v. Reksmad, Inc., 346 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (“[A] party can successfully defend against liability on a claim by showing that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract or transaction upon which such liability is asserted.”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1996)…SHAW, Judge. We have for review HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses S.A, 661 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(en banc). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses (LACSA) sued HTP, Ltd.…
-
Hotels OF KEY Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…able and thus there can be no actionable fraud). We write further because the issue of the scope of the economic loss doctrine as it relates to allegations of fraud requires additional explanation. In HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses S.A., 661 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), this Court held that a claim for fraudulent inducement is an independent tort and thus not barred by the economic loss rule. See Wassall v. Payne, 682 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Jarmco, Inc. v. Polygard, Inc., 668 So. 2d 300…
-
Greenfield v. Manor Care, Inc., 705 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ecognized “fraud in the inducement” as an exception to the economic loss doctrine. See TGI Dev., Inc. v. CV Reit, Inc., 665 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), approved 689 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1997); see also HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 661 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), approved, 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.1996). In approving the Third District Court of Appeals decision in HTP, Ltd., the supreme court recognized, however, that some fraudulent inducement claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Rogers, 556 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Pieter Bakker Mgmt., Inc. v. First Fed. Sayings & Loan Ass'n, 541 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Wilson v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 622 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Poneleit v. Reksmad, Inc., 346 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)