TERESA M. RUIZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WARREN HENRY AUTOMOBILES, INC., D/B/A LAND ROVER NORTH DADE, 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.
Teresa Ruiz appealed a dismissal of her claims against Warren Henry Automobiles for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court reversed and remanded because Ruiz was not the lessee of the vehicle in question—her mother was—and therefore she lacked standing to bring these claims, but the case should be remanded to allow her mother to be joined as a proper party.
The court held that Ruiz, as a non-lessee, could not state claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, or FDUPTA violations because these causes of action require the plaintiff to be the party who relied on the misrepresentation and suffered injury in justifiable reliance. However, the case should be remanded to permit the actual lessee (Ruiz's mother) to be joined as a party so that appropriate claims may be stated.
[1] A plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation of a material fact, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, and injury resulting from justifiable reliance to state a…
[2] To prove negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must demonstrate a misrepresentation of material fact, the representer's knowledge of its falsity, intent to induce reli…
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“In order to state a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must allege that 1) the representor made a misrepresentation of a material fact, 2) the representor knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement, 3) the representor intended that the representation would induce another to rely and act on it, and 4) the plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance on the representation”
Establishes the elements required to plead fraudulent inducement and demonstrates the requirement that the plaintiff be the party who suffered injury in justifiable reliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile was leased to Teresa Ruiz's mother, not to Ruiz herself. Ruiz filed suit against Warren Henry Automobiles alleging fraudulent inducement…
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 Negligent Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
While we acknowledge that the amended complaint and the documents attached to it demonstrate that the automobile at issue was not leased to Teresa M. Ruiz and that she has not, therefore, stated claims sounding in fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation or violation of FDUPTA, we agree that this case should be remanded to permit the lessee of the vehicle, Ruiz’s mother, to be joined so that appropriate claim or claims may be stated. See Biscayne Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Guarantee Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(“In order to state a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must allege that 1) the representor made a misrepresentation of a material fact, 2) the representor knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement, 3) the representor intended that the representation would induce another to rely and act on it, and 4) the plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance on the representation”); Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(“To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the repre-senter either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representation was false; (3) the representer intended to induce another to act on the misrepresentation; and (4) injury resulted to a party acting in justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation.”) (emphasis added); § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (permitting recovery by “a person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of this part”).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Brown v. State, 903 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)