BOCA AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, LLC, ET AL.

v.

FIFTEEN GROUP CAPITAL, LLC

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0670 Lower Tribunal No. 19-14281-CA-01 ________________

Boca Aircraft Maintenance, LLC, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Fifteen Group Capital, LLC, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, for appellants.

Rosenthal Law Group and Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem Jones (Weston), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.

LOBREE, J.

BACKGROUND

In July 2018, Fifteen’s leased Dassault Falcon 50 aircraft (“the Aircraft”) was due for inspection and maintenance. Fifteen hired Corporate Air Charters (“CAC”) to manage the Aircraft, and Bill Detig, the maintenance director of CAC, was tasked with vetting the qualifications of aircraft repair stations to perform the required maintenance. Detig only considered Part 145 certified aircraft repair stations, and BAM was one of several stations Detig vetted to perform the maintenance. Eventually, Detig met with Wilkins, BAM’s president and sole owner, and Hintzke, BAM’s director of technical services, at BAM’s facility in Boca Raton in July 2018. Detig, Wilkins, and Hintzke discussed the maintenance that would be provided, and which workers would work on the Aircraft. At the conclusion of the meeting Detig felt that he could recommend BAM to complete the work on the Aircraft. Fifteen and BAM later entered a contract

6

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.” Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 338 So. 3d 971, 973–74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). “[M]ixed questions of law and fact . . . require us to employ a mixed standard of review: we defer to the trial court’s factual findings (to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial evidence), but we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Ezer v. Holdack, 358 So. 3d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Batur v. Signature Props. of N.W. Fla., Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)).

ANALYSIS

“It is a fundamental, long-standing common law principle that a plaintiff may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” Island Travel & Tours, Ltd., Co. v. MYR Indep., Inc., 300 So. 3d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“It is well established that breach of contractual terms may not form the basis for a

7 claim in tort. Where damages sought in tort are the same as those for breach of contract a plaintiff may not circumvent the contractual relationship by bringing an action in tort.”). “It is well settled in Florida that . . . . for an alleged misrepresentation regarding a contract to be actionable, the damages stemming from that misrepresentation must be independent, separate and distinct from the damages sustained from the contract’s breach.” Peebles v. Puig, 223 So. 3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citation omitted). Additionally, “[p]unitive damages are generally not recoverable for a breach of contract unless it is accompanied by a separate and independent tort claim.” Ghodrati v. Miami Paneling Corp., 770 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, we conclude that Fifteen had no right to recover tort or punitive damages because the fraud and negligence claims were not independent of the breach of contract claims and Fifteen sought identical damages for all claims. In its tort claims, Fifteen asserted that Wilkins and Hintzke made fraudulent representations, of which BAM was aware, to Detig that: (1) BAM employed mechanics with extensive experience, “specifically with the Dassault Breguet Falcon 50,” who were experienced to perform the maintenance; (2) these “Falcon 50” mechanics were all located in BAM’s service station in Boca Raton but would be relocated to its Opa-Locka

8 service station to perform the maintenance; (3) these experienced “Falcon 50” mechanics would be the specific mechanics who performed and supervised the entire scope of the maintenance on the Aircraft. Fifteen contended these fraudulent misrepresentations induced Fifteen to enter the contract with BAM and BAM negligently failed to repair the Aircraft. Fifteen, however, fails to demonstrate what separate and distinct damages specifically arose from the alleged misrepresentation that only Falcon-50 trained mechanics would perform maintenance on the Aircraft. Under Florida law “[a] plaintiff . . . may not recover damages for fraud that duplicate damages awarded for breach of contract.” Ghodrati, 770 So. 2d at 183. The only damages awarded by the trial court for the tort claims were the payment to move the Aircraft to West Star Aviation, payment for loss of use and storage of the Aircraft, and prejudgment interest. There is nothing in the record demonstrating how those damages arose separately and distinctly from the damages awarded for the breach of contract claim— i.e., the payment to Dassault for repairs after the flap incident and the payment to West Star Aviation for inspection and additional repairs. All these damages arose from the same incident. The final judgment simply arbitrarily assigned some damages to the tort claims and the remainder to the breach of contract claims, without discussion of how each damage award arose from

9 the allegedly independent claims. There is nothing in the record showing that Fifteen suffered any distinct damages separate and apart from those it suffered as a result of BAM’s insufficient performance of the contract and the cost of remediating that work. All the injuries Fifteen suffered arose because BAM failed to perform the contract. “Under such circumstances, Florida does not allow a party damaged by a breach of contract to recover the exact same contract damages via a fraud claim.” Peebles, 223 So. 3d at 1069; see also Richard Swaebe, Inc. v. Sears World Trade, Inc., 639 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[W]ithout proving a separate and independent tort, even flagrant and oppressive breach of contract could not be converted into tort in order to recover punitive damages.” (citing Lewis v. Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1982))). As Fifteen’s damages resulted from BAM’s breach of contract and not any independent, separate, or distinct fraudulent misrepresentations by BAM, Wilkins, or Hintzke, we reverse the final judgment in part, vacate the punitive damages awarded, and remand with instructions for the trial court to determine whether any compensatory damages initially awarded under the tort claims should be allocated as breach of contract damages. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.