M & M AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., APPELLEE
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 court affirmed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that M&M could not recover additional damages on its fraudulent inducement claim due to the economic loss doctrine and that EC waived its challenge to the claim's pleading and proof.
M&M appealed a summary judgment for EC based on the economic loss doctrine, while EC cross-appealed a judgment awarding M&M damages for fraudulent ind…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
M & M Aircraft Services, Inc. (M & M), appeals from a final summary judgment granted in favor of EC Technologies, Inc. (“EC”), on the basis of the economic loss doctrine. EC cross-appeals a final judgment awarding M & M $837,691.13 plus prejudgment interest on its fraudulent inducement claim. We affirm both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Because M & M, in its fraudulent inducement claim, received the full amount of its damages, any additional award of damages would have been an improper double recovery. See Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)(plaintiff made whole by judgment not entitled to additional damages on alternative theories). See also Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So. 2d 1338, 1340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(“Ap-pellant certainly could not recover more than once for the damages she was pursuing against appellee, nor could she succeed on mutually exclusive causes of action[.]”). Moreover, the potential inability to collect the totality of damages is not a collateral consequence upon which a reversal can be based. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal. See Chase v. Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147, 150 (Fla.1958)(result in trial court must be affirmed if right, even if right for wrong reason).
On its cross-appeal EC claims that M & M failed to properly plead and/or prove its fraudulent inducement claim. EC did not, by way of motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense, raise this issue in the trial court. Thus, the issue has been waived for appellate review. See, e.g., Pres. Leasing, Inc. v. Krout, 896 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(seller waived for appellate review its claim that trial court should have severed paragraph requiring buyer to pay seller’s attorney fees from remainder of purchase order in buyer’s action for fraud, where issue was not raised in trial court).
Based upon these reasons, we affirm both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Ascensores Servas, S.A., 89 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ation of damages. However, “a double recovery based on the same element of damages is prohibited.” Montage Group, Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also M & M Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. EC Tech., Inc., 911 So. 2d 161, 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding because plaintiff, in its fraudulent inducement claim, received the full amount of its damages, any additional award of damages would have been an improper double recovery). In this case, when the trial court determ…
-
MBI Servs., LLC v. Apex Distrib. LLC (S.D. Fla. 2023)…ion, and FDUTPA. MBI has further shown that it has suffered damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00. MBI entitled to recover $2,000,000.00 from Jones and Barnes, who are jointly and severally liable. See M&M Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. ECF Techs., Inc., 911 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (prohibiting double recovery for damages under alternative theories of liability); Acadia Partners, L.P. v. Tompkins, 759 So. 2d 732, 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“Joint and several liability among multiple tortfeasors exists when the…
Authorities Cited
- Chase v. Faris Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1958)
- Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Presidential Leasing, Inc. v. Krout, 896 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)