RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PK VENTURES, INC., AND ROBERT L. ROSE, THOMAS F. KANE, LOUIS KRUTOY, ROBERT F. GRIMMIG, JOSEPH F. MANNELLO, JOEL A. MARSHALL, THOMAS F. KANE, JR., G. CLIFFORD MCCARTHY, AND FRANCIS J. CEROSKY, 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.
The economic loss rule prevents recovery for fraud in the inducement against a business broker for commercial property sales.
Buyers of a commercial mine sued the business broker for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the marketing brochure contained misrepresent…
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
DANAHY, Judge.
In our recent opinion in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we held that a buyer of residential property is prevented by the “economic loss rule” from recovering damages for fraud in the inducement against the real estate agent and its individual agent representing the sellers. In accordance with that holding, we affirmed but certified the question.
In this case we have the same situation and our holding is consistent with Woodson. The only difference between Woodson and the case before us is that Woodson involved the sale of residential property and this case involves the sale of commercial property. We consider this difference to be of no significance.
In this case the owner of a limerock mine hired Raymond James to act as a business broker/investment banker to pursue the possible sale of the mine. Raymond James pre pared a descriptive marketing brochure, which the parties called the “Memorandum.”
The appellees bought the mine and thereafter became disappointed with their investment. The owner of the mine having filed in bankruptcy, the appellees brought this suit against Raymond James for fraud, alleging that the Raymond James Memorandum contained fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Raymond James on the fraud claim, but awarded the appellees the sum of one million dollars on their negligent misrepresentation claim.
As stated above, we consider this case governed by our recent holding in Woodson. We reverse and certify to the supreme court as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Woodson. In view of our disposition on this point, we specifically do not address other issues raised by Raymond James.
Reversed. Question certified.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1997)…PER CURIAM. This is a petition to review Raymond James & Associates v. PK Ventures, Inc., 666 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the district court certified to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).1 Although the district court observed that W…
-
Cowley v. Nero, 693 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ge’s action on appellee’s motion for rehearing was “based solely on the economic loss rule relying upon Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.1993); Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. PK Ventures, Inc., [666 So. 2d 174], 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2699 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 6, 1995); and Woodson v. Martin, [663 So. 2d 1327], 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2556 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 17, 1995).” On October 17, 1996, our supreme court issued its opinion in HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarrice…
-
Poag v. Harring, 696 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…e agreement. The trial court granted the appellees’ motions for summary judgment on the basis that the economic loss rule prevented the Poags’ recovery of damages in this case. The court cited Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. PK Ventures, Inc., 666 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which were the controlling authorities at that time. After the trial court entered its order, the Florida Supreme Court quashed Woodson in Woodson v. Martin, 685 So. 2d 1…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)