LINN-WELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STUART LICHTER AND BARRY LANG, APPELLANTS,
v.
PRESTON & FARLEY, INC., AND CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING, INC., 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 court affirmed summary judgment for the real estate broker defendants, holding that the economic loss rule bars a fraud-in-the-inducement claim by commercial property buyers against the sellers' real estate agent, and certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
The economic loss rule bars a buyer of commercial property from recovering damages for fraud in the inducement against a real estate agent representing the sellers.
[1] The economic loss rule bars a commercial property buyer from recovering tort damages for fraud in the inducement against the real estate agent representing the sellers.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinn-Well Development Corporation and individuals Lichter and Lang challenged trial court orders denying their motion for relief from summary judgment…
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 Economic Loss Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
We need not recount the convoluted procedural events preceding the presence of this matter before us. It is sufficient to note that Linn-Well Development Corporation, Stuart Lichter and Barry Lang (“the Linn-Well litigants”) have challenged the trial court’s orders, in one instance denying the Linn-Well litigants’ motion for relief from a final summary judgment and in a subsequent but related case granting a final summary judgment in favor of Preston & Farley, Inc. The Linn-Well litigants contend that Preston & Farley cannot benefit from res judicata and collateral estoppel as a result of orders entered in another but related lawsuit. We refrain from passing upon whether the foregoing principles are meritoriously asserted. We have done so because the Linn-Well litigants luge the view that the economic loss rule cannot bar their tort claim against Pres ton & Farley. That issue, which we deem pivotal, derives from the application of the economic loss rule to an action for fraud in the inducement alleged against a real estate broker. Within that limited setting, we affirm the trial court in the light of our en banc decision in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the substance of the question certified in Woodson:
IS A BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS?
ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1997)…UYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS? Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This question is controlled by PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Associates, 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1997). We quash Linn-Well and remand for proceedings consistent with PK Ven…
-
Gerri A. Randolph v. Mitchell, 677 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…third party (a non-party to the engine rebuilding contract) from a fraud action? The supreme court has not yet decided this question although the issue is presently pending before the court. See Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Although the court in Woodson held that the real estate broker as well as the seller were protected by the economic loss rule, it did so merely because of the nature of plaintiffs damages and without considering the separate rol…
-
Moncer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…initially denied appellant's motion as untimely, and appellant appealed. This court reversed and remanded with directions to the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion was timely mailed. See Moncer v. State, 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Apparently, it was during the pendency of that appeal that the court file was destroyed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)