GEORGE H. RUDING, JR. AND E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
HUGH G. THOMPSON, JR., APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 the award of compensatory damages but reversed the directed verdict on punitive damages against one defendant.
Plaintiff was awarded damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court directed a verdict against the plaintiff on his claim for punitive dam…
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 Fraudulent Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*707] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment which awarded damages of $32,184 to the plaintiff, Hugh G. Thompson, Jr., based on fraudulent misrepresentation. George H. Ruding and E.F. Hutton and Company, defendants, appeal. No reversible error having been made to appear, we affirm as to the main appeal.
Mr. Thompson cross appeals saying that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on his claim for punitive damages. Based upon the authority of First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1987), we agree that reversible error was committed when the trial court disallowed Mr. Thompson’s claim for punitive damages against Mr. Ruding.
Thus, as to the cross appeal, we affirm the directed verdict on punitive damages as concerns E.F. Hutton and Company. We reverse the directed verdict on punitive damages as concerns Mr. Ruding and remand for a new trial solely as to Mr. Rud-ing on the punitive damages issue.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions.
DOWNEY, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blue Cross/Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc. v. Weiner, 543 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ubmitting the issue of [*798] punitive damages to the jury. First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1987); Rappaport v. Jimmy Bryan Toyota of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 522 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Ruding v. Thompson, 517 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The appellees argue that Maryland’s motion for directed verdict on the punitive damage issue did not question the sufficiency of proof on the fraud and emotional distress claims. However, we need not examine this point, nor whe…
-
Rappaport v. Jimmy Bryan Toyota OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 522 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…(Fla.1984), had taken the position that not all cases of fraud would support a punitive damages claim. That distinction is clearly not supported by the most recent pronouncement of the supreme court, which we recently followed in Ruding v. Thompson, 517 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The rationale seems to be that the tort of fraud involves “a deliberate and knowing misrepresentation designed to cause, and actually causing detrimental reliance by the plaintiff.” Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d at 539. Thus, in all case…
Authorities Cited
- First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987)