ROGER V. BARTH APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR M. KHUBANI, KHUBANI ENTERPRISES, INC. AND AZAD INTERNATIONAL, 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.
Roger V. Barth appealed from an adverse final judgment in a commercial dispute with Victor M. Khubani and related entities. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the directed verdict on the fraud count, finding sufficient evidence of prima facie fraud and holding that fraud in the inducement is not barred by the economic loss rule, while affirming other aspects of the judgment.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on the fraud count because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie case of fraud. Fraud in the inducement is an independent tort and is not barred by the economic loss rule. The statute of frauds issue was not properly preserved for appeal due to the general verdict form used.
[1] A prima facie case of fraud is established when a plaintiff presents evidence that a defendant's agent made a false statement concerning a material fact within the scope…
[2] Fraud in the inducement is an independent tort and is not barred by the economic loss rule.
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“fraud in the inducement is an independent tort and is not barred by the economic loss rule”
Establishes that the economic loss rule does not bar fraud in the inducement claims, reversing the trial court's directed verdict on this basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff testified that the defendant's agent made a false statement concerning a material fact within the agent's scope of authority, knowing th…
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 General Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Roger V. Barth, appeals from an adverse final judgment and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. We reverse, in part, and affirm, in part.
First, we find that the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on the plaintiffs count for fraud. The plaintiff testified that the defendant’s agent had made a false statement concerning a material fact; that the agent was acting within his scope of authority; that the agent knew the representation was false; that the agent intended that the representation induce the plaintiff to act; and that the plaintiffs reliance on the representation caused him a resulting injury. This evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to state a prima facie case of fraud. Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla.1985). Additionally, we find that the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on the plaintiffs count for fraud on the alternative basis that the claim for fraud in the inducement was barred by the economic loss rule. HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla.1996)(“[F]raud in the inducement is an independent tort and is not barred by the economic loss rule.”).
Next, we find that the plaintiff did not properly preserve the statute of frauds issue for review on appeal. Because a general verdict form was submitted to the jury, it is unclear whether the jury found the underlying contract to be unenforceable because it was barred by the statute of frauds, because the plaintiff had failed to perform the conditions precedent, or because no valid contract existed. Therefore, in the absence of an objection to the use of the general verdict form, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to demonstrate prejudice. Whitman v. Castlewood Int'l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1980); Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Pfister v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., [*74-76] 405 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1982).
The plaintiffs remaining point lacks merit.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roger v. Barth, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1999)…SHAW, J. We have for review Barth v. Khubani, 705 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with Charlemagne v. Francis, 700 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 703 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1997).1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue presented by the con…
-
Bankers Mut. Cap. Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 784 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…y. Additionally, all essential elements of fraud must be alleged, i.e., the plaintiff relied to his detriment on a false statement concerning a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity and an intent to induce reliance. See Barth v. Khubani, 705 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(citing Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla.1985)), approved, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1999). The allegations in the amended complaint are clear and specific. The amended complaint clearly states that Lima is one of the spea…
-
Pa. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Sunrise Club, Inc., 711 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…aintiffs affirmatively and successfully resisted a special jury interrogatory which would have separated these issues, the insureds can win on this point only if neither possible finding against them is supported by the record. See Barth v. Khubani, 705 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, there is ample evidence to justify an adverse verdict as to both. See Dennies Contracting Co. v. Hersh, 702 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Wong Ken, 685 So. 2d at 1002; Espino v. Anez, 665 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…
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
- Johnson v. Morton Davis and Edna Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985)
- HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1996)
- Whitman v. Castlewood Int'l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1980)
- N. Am. Life & Cas. Co. v. Satenig Balikian, 405 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Emil Pfister and Grace Pfister v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., 405 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Comreal Miami, Inc. v. Hatari Imports, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Palmetto Gen. Hosp. & Luis Juarez, M.D. v. Green, 559 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)