ROBERT MAUNSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE
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.
Robert Maunsell sued American General Life and Accident Insurance Company for fraudulent inducement, claiming the company's representatives promised him promotion to management and the ability to hire staff within three months of employment. The trial court granted summary judgment for American General, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that promises regarding future employment benefits are not actionable as fraud under Florida law.
Future promises regarding employment benefits are not actionable as fraud; therefore, American General's statements cannot support a claim for fraud in the inducement.
[1] A promise to do something in the future, even if false when made, is not actionable as fraud.
[2] Statements regarding future promotion and the ability to hire staff are not actionable as fraud.
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“A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that future promises cannot support a fraud claim under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaunsell left his job at Liberty National Insurance Company to work for American General based on oral promises by American General's representative t…
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 Actionable Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Maunsell appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of American General Life and Accident Insurance Company (“American General”). Maunsell left his job with Liberty National Insurance Company to go work with American General based upon American General’s representative’s promise to promote him to a management position, and allow him to hire his own staff within three months of employment. Subsequent to these promises, Maun-sell and American General signed a standard “Field Representative Employment Agreement” which was silent as to these promises. Maunsell began working at American General, but he was never promoted nor did he hire his own staff. Maunsell left employment with American General eight months later and filed a suit for fraudulent inducement.
The trial court granted American General’s motion for summary judgment, and we affirm. American General’s future promises regarding Maunsell’s promotion and hiring of staff, which were to occur three months after employment, are not actionable as fraud. See Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud.”); see also Stoler v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 287 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1969); 27 Fla. Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit § 24 (1981). Because American General’s statements are not actionable as fraud, there is no action for fraud in the inducement.
Hence, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of American General.
Affirmed.
COPE, Judge,
specially concurring.
Plaintiff pled not only that the defendant made certain promises to him, but that, at the time the promises were made, defendant had no intention of carrying them out. The complaint thus states the essential elements of a cause of action for fraud in the inducement. See Bernard Marko & Assocs., Inc. v. Steele, 230 So. 2d 42, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 25 (1981). As a matter of pleading, therefore, I do not agree with the statement in the majority opinion that plaintiff’s claims “are not actionable as fraud.” Majority opinion at 2.
However, on summary judgment there must be something in the record which raises “an issue as to whether future conduct was promised with ... wrongful intent.” Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The summary judgment record must, of course, be read favorably to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, see Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985), and must be read with the admonition in mind that summary judgment is granted cautiously in cases involving fraud. See Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Nonetheless, even read in that light, I see no fact or reasonable factual inference which would support the complaint’s bare assertion that, at the time the promises were made, the defendant did not intend to carry them out. I therefore concur in affirming the summary judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…is appellee.1 An action for fraud generally may not be predicated on statements of opinion or promises of future action, but rather must be based on a statement concerning a past or existing fact. Maunsell v. American Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Baker v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), rev. denied, 669 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1996); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, the courts have recognized…
-
Frutafino v. Dole Chile, S.A., 405 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…, the fraudulent statement must concern a past or existing fact.” Gemini Inv’rs III, L.P. v. Nunez, 78 So. 3d 94, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). See also Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Maunsell v. Am. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Some courts, including ours, have recognized an exception to this requirement “if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the person promising future action does so with no intention of performing or with a positive intention no…
-
Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. Francis L. "Biff" Shea, III, 827 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Maunsell v. American Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Futura Realty v. Lone Star Building Centers (Eastern), Inc., 578 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Bernard Marko & Assocs., Inc. v. Morton Steele and Lester Segerman, 230 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Rufus Palmer, M.D. v. Santa FE Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Sleight v. SUN & Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bassham v. State, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1969)
- Pepin & Campbell Ins. Co. v. Johns, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1969)
- Stoler v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. & Harold Wolf, 287 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Saundra K. Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)