STEWART HOWARD LYLE AND GAY LYLE, APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONAL SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROBERT W. GOODWIN, 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 Lyles brought a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against their insurance agent Robert Goodwin, alleging he misrepresented the scope of their hospitalization coverage. Although the court found Goodwin made false representations, it affirmed summary judgment against the Lyles because they ultimately recovered full coverage for the disputed medical expenses, leaving them with no damages—an essential element of a fraud claim.
No. Although an agent may be independently liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, damages are an essential element of such a cause of action. Because the Lyles ultimately prevailed against the insurer and received full coverage for the hospitalization expenses, they suffered no legally cognizable damages and therefore failed to establish a valid fraud claim.
[1] Damages are an essential element of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.
[2] A plaintiff must demonstrate that they incurred damages proximately caused by a defendant's breach of duty to prove a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.
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“to prove a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show that a defendant owed him a duty, that the duty was breached, and that he incurred damages proximately caused by the breach”
Establishes the three essential elements required for fraud, with damages being mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants' employer contracted with National Savings Life Insurance Company through agent Robert Goodwin for employee hospitalization coverage. After…
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 Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellants Stewart Howard Lyle and Gay Lyle seek review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Robert W. Goodwin. This case presents the question whether there can be a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation when no damages were incurred as a result of the misrepresentation. We affirm.
The record in this case reflects that appellant’s employer, Raffields Fisheries, contracted with National Savings Life Insurance Company (National Savings) through its agent, Robert W. Goodwin, to provide hospitalization coverage for its employees, including appellant. After issuance of the insurance, appellant suffered a myocardial infarction which required bypass surgery. When demand was made upon the insurer for payment of appellant’s hospitalization expenses, the company denied coverage, claiming the medical bills were attributable to a pre-existing condition for which coverage was excluded. Appellants filed suit, alleging that Goodwin assured appellant Stewart Lyle and his employer that the hospitalization coverage provided by National Savings included a no-loss no-gain guarantee.
The trial court found the undisputed facts established that Stewart Lyle’s heart condition was not preexisting, and entered summary judgment in favor of the Lyles. After the trial court’s determination was affirmed upon appeal to this court, appellee Goodwin filed a motion for summary judgment, raising as ground therefor that because there was coverage for Lyle’s hospitalization, appellant suffered no damages as a result of Goodwin’s negligence.
The parties agree that an agent, though acting for an acknowledged principal, is independently liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. Shee-Con, Inc. v. Al Seim Appraisal Service, Inc., 427 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Inter-Ocean (Free Zone), Inc. v. Manaure Lines, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 710 (D.C.Fla.1985). However, to prove a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show that a defendant owed him a duty, that the duty was breached, and that he incurred damages proximately caused by the breach. Cato v. West Florida Hospital, Inc., 471 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In other words, damages are an essential element of a cause of action for negligence. Kellermeyer v. Miller, 427 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Prosser, Law of Torts, § 30 at 143 (4th Ed.1971).
On facts similar to those presented in this case, the third district found no legal basis for an insured’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim, because the insurer was required to cover the sued upon accident. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Black, 546 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The court held that in such circumstances, “there can be no claim for fraudulent misrepresentation because no legally cognizable damage was sustained by Black.” Id. See also Casey v. Welch, 50 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1951); National Aircraft Services, Inc. v. Aeroserv International, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The record in this case reflects that affidavits filed by appellants in opposition to Goodwin’s motion for summary judgment set forth sufficient factual allegations to support a conclusion that Goodwin made false representations to appellants’ employer and to appellants concerning health insurance coverage under the National Savings policy, and that appellants relied on those false representations.
However, the record also reflects that because appellants prevailed in their action against the insurer, they received the health insurance cov-erage allegedly promised by Goodwin.
Therefore, appellants in this case, like the insured in Empire Fire & Marine, have failed to demonstrate the existence of an essential element of an action for fraud, i.e., damages. In the circumstances, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Goodwin was proper.
Accordingly, the final summary judgment appealed is affirmed.
ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., Inc. v. First Indem. Ins. Servs., Inc., 31 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…r she controls as not to harm another. See 3 Am.Jur.2d, Agency § 309 (1986); Restatement Second of Agency § 343. Id. at 1069. An agent can also be independently liable for its own fraudulent misrepresentations. See Lyle v. Nat’l Sav. Life Ins. Co., 558 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, the fact that First Indemnity, as a broker, was the agent of the insured, does not preclude its liability for negligent or fraudulent conduct. The court erred in dismissing the complaint on this ground. In its…
-
Cedant v. United States (S.D. Fla. 2024)…the preponderance of the evidence that his current injuries, including his preexisting degenerative conditions, were aggravated and/or caused by the accident. c. Damages “Damages are an essential element of a cause of action for negligence.” Lyle, 558 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla.1st DCA 1990). Damages include all those that “are a natural proximate, probable or direct consequence of an act, but do not include remote consequences.” See Tharpe, 2016 WL 4217863, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2016) (citation omitted) (Un…
-
Scott v. Paychex Ins. Agency, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023)…duty for Count IV in the next section. Defendant relies on out-of-context citations to support its erroneous interpretation of what Plaintiff’s claims require Plaintiff to prove. (See Def.’s Mot. 14–16 (discussing Lyle v. Nat’l Sav. Life Ins. Co., 558 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gyongyosi v. Miller, 80 So. 3d 1070, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); Pl.’s Resp. 10–13 (explaining Defendant’s error)). In short, 21 While Plaintiff’s argument is correct as it pertains to misrepresentation claims,…
Authorities Cited
- Casey v. Welch, 50 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1951)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Elbert S. Carley, 427 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Williams v. State, 544 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Shee-Con, Inc. v. AL Seim Appraisal Serv., Inc., 427 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Cato v. W. Fla. Hosp., Inc., 471 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Black, 546 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Inter-Ocean (Free Zone), Inc. v. Manaure Lines, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 710 (S.D. Fla. 1985)