EDWIN BRINKER, APPELLANT,
v.
W.P. MCDEVITT & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND WILLIAM P. MCDEVITT, 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.
Court affirmed dismissal of breach of contract claims but reversed dismissal of fraud in the inducement claims, holding that allegations of fraudulent inducement to enter an employment contract and retain a book of business stated a viable claim.
Fraud in the inducement claims based on allegations that defendants fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter an employment contract with intent never to let him retain ownership of his book of business state a viable claim and survive dismissal.
[1] Fraud in the inducement may be predicated on a promisor's specific intent at the time of making a promise not to perform it, even though fraud cannot be based on mere non…
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 intelligence“fraud in the inducement may properly be founded on fact that promisor had specific intent when promise was made not to perform promise, and other elements of fraud are established”
Explaining the distinction between breach of contract and fraud in the inducement, citing Alexander/Davis Properties Inc. v. Graham
Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with an insurance agency, allegedly induced by fraudulent representations that he would retain ownership…
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 Corporate Officer Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
Although we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs breach of contract claims with prejudice, we reverse the dismissal of his fraud in the inducement claims against both defendants.
His second amended complaint sufficiently alleged that both defendants fraudulently induced him to enter into an employment contract with their insurance agency for the purpose of bringing his “book of business” into the agency and that they never intended to let him retain ownership of the “book” or pay him its value if his employment should be terminated. See Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Inc. v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1991) (elements of fraud in inducement: representation of material fact that is knowingly false and intentionally made to induce the repre-sentee to do an act from which he suffers damage); Alexander/Davis Properties Inc. v. Graham, 397 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (although fraud may not be predicated on mere promise not performed, fraud in the inducement may properly be founded on fact that promisor had specific intent when promise was made not to perform promise, and other elements of fraud are established); and Roth v. Nautical Engineering Corp., 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (corporate officer individually liable for fraud committed while acting as corporate representative.).
STEVENSON, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Fin. USA, Inc. v. Les Steinger, 760 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…n may be individually liable because complaint alleged that he had orchestrated the false representations made to the plaintiffs and had also allowed his name to be associated with the representations made); Brinker v. W.P. McDevitt & Assocs., Inc., 693 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(reversing dismissal of fraud in the inducement claims where the plaintiff alleged that two individual defendants fraudulently induced him to enter into an employment contract with their insurance agency for the purpose of bringin…
-
Hall v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 700 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ct and then invoked the line of cases in which a single incident of misconduct was held to be insufficient as a matter of law to disqualify the terminated employee from receipt of unemployment benefits. Compare Easton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 693 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(single incident of poor judgment with which employee was charged, pouring a glass of juice in a room other than the employee cafeteria in contravention of employer’s policy, held insufficient as a matter of law to disqualify the…1 / 2
-
Durall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & BellSouth Commc'n Sys., Inc., 743 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…2 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Further, in determining what constitutes misconduct under that standard, courts are to construe the statute providing the standard narrowly in favor of the claimant. See Easton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 693 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, Durall did not challenge or undermine her employer in any way. Her conduct, if we accept the transcribed conversation, was not an intentional or wanton disregard of BellSouth’s interests. Durall did not know her conv…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alexander/Davis Props., Inc. v. Graham, 397 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- LOU Bachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Donnie Leroy Martin v. State, 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)