PK VENTURES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a buyer of commercial property is not barred by the economic loss rule from recovering damages for negligent misrepresentation against the seller's broker. The Court applied its decision in Woodson v. Martin, which established that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not subject to the economic loss rule.
No. The buyer is not prevented by the economic loss rule from recovering damages for negligent misrepresentation against the seller's broker. The Court's prior decision in Woodson v. Martin controls, establishing that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not barred by the economic loss rule, and this principle applies equally to commercial property sales.
[1] The economic loss rule does not bar a buyer of commercial property from recovering damages for negligent misrepresentation against the seller's broker.
[2] Fraud in the inducement is an independent tort that is not barred by the economic loss rule.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“IS THE BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PETITIONERS) PREVENTED BY THE "ECONOMIC LOSS RULE" FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST THE SELLER'S BROKER (RESPONDENT)?”
The certified question of great public importance that the Court answered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePK Ventures purchased commercial property through Raymond James & Associates, a broker representing the sellers. The buyer alleged negligent misrepres…
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 Independent Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to review Raymond James & Associates v. PK Ventures, Inc., 666 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the district court certified to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).1 Although the district court observed that Woodson involved the sale of residential property and this case involves the sale of commercial property, the court found the difference to be insignificant. PK Ventures, 666 So. 2d at 175. We agree and rephrase the question from Woodson: IS THE BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PETITIONERS) PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST THE SELLER’S BROKER (RESPONDENT)?
We have jurisdiction.2 Art. V, § 8(b)(4), Fla. Const. Our decision in Woodson v. Martin, 685 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.1996), controls.3 We answer the certified question in the negative, quash the decision below, and remand for proceedings consistent with Woodson.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . Is the buyer of residential property (the appellant) prevented by the "economic loss rule” from recovering damages for fraud in the inducement against the real estate agent and its individual agent (the appellees) representing the sellers?
In Woodson v. Martin, 685 So. 2d 1240 (Fla.1996), we answered the certified question in the negative and quashed the district court decision.
. Once a court obtains jurisdiction, it has the discretion to consider any issue affecting the case. Cantor v. Davis, 489 So. 2d 18, 20 (Fla. 1986); State v. Hutchins, 636 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Here, both the Second District and this Court obtained jurisdiction and thus discretion to consider the economic loss rule issue, even though it was not raised before the trial court.
. Our decision in Woodson was controlled by HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.1996), wherein we held that fraud in the inducement is an independent tort not barred by the economic loss rule.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Philippe H. Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1999)…rt has recognized the danger in an unprincipled extension of the rule, and we have declined to extend the economic loss rule to actions based on fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. See PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Assocs., 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1997) (negligent misrepresentation); HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A, 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.1996) (fraudulent inducement). In HTP, Ltd., we held that a claim for fraudulent inducement constituted a tort independent from the underl…
-
Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1997)…GENT 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 Ventures, and for consideration of Preston & Farley’s alternative arguments for affirmance of the trial court’s final summary judgment. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., a…
-
Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2004)…s.” Paul J. Schwiep, The Economic Loss Rule Outbreak: The Monster that Ate Commercial Torts, Fla. B. J„ Nov. 1995, at 34, 42. . Moransais, 744 So. 2d at 983. . See HTP, Ltd., 685 So. 2d at 1239. . See PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Assocs., 690 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla.1997); First Florida Bank, N.A. v. Max Mitchell & Co., 558 So. 2d 9, 15-16 (Fla.1990); First American Title Ins. Co. v. First Title Serv. Co., 457 So. 2d 467, 473 (Fla.1984). . See Comptech, 753 So. 2d at 1221.…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1996)
- Cantor v. Estine Davis, 489 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1986)
- Woodson v. Martin, 663 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Woodson v. Martin, 685 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Hutchins, 636 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Raymond James & Assocs., Inc. v. PK Ventures, Inc., 666 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)