LINDI DIANA WADLINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., CENTRAL LAB, INC., AND ARMANDO VICENTE, JR., 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.
Wadlington appealed the dismissal of her fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims under the economic loss rule. The court reversed, holding that fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation independent of breach of contract are not barred by the economic loss rule, and that Wadlington's claims were sufficiently independent of the alleged contract breach.
Claims for fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation that are independent of breach of contract are not barred by the economic loss rule. Wadlington's Counts V and VI were founded upon torts independent of breach and therefore the dismissal order was reversed.
[1] The economic loss rule limits common law tort remedies, providing that absent a tort independent of breach of contract, the remedy for economic loss lies in contract law.
[2] Fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims are not barred by the economic loss rule when they are founded upon torts independent of a breach of contra…
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 and negligent misrepresentation independent of the breach of contract are not barred by the economic loss rule.”
States the core holding that fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims survive the economic loss rule when independent of breach.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWadlington filed a third amended complaint against Continental Medical Services, Inc., Central Lab, Inc., and Armando Vicente, Jr., asserting claims f…
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
STEVENSON, J.
Lindi Diana Wadlington appeals an order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice her claims for fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation upon a finding that such claims are barred by the economic loss rule. We reverse.
The economic loss rule “is a judge-made limitation on common law tort remedies,” Facchina v. Mutual Benefits Corp., No. 97-2580, - So. 2d -, -, 1999 WL 19185, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan.20, 1999), providing that “ ‘absent a tort independent of breach of contract, remedy for economic loss lies in contract law,’” Wassall v. Payne, 682 So. 2d 678, 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(quoting Monco Enters., Inc. v. Ziebart Corp., 673 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). Fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation independent of the breach of contract are not barred by the economic loss rule. See HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Cos tarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla.1996); Wassall, 682 So. 2d at 681; TGI Dev., Inc. v. CV Reit, Inc., 665 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 689 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1996). We find that Counts V and VI of Wadling-ton’s third amended complaint are founded upon torts independent of the breach and, accordingly, reverse the order of dismissal.
In so doing, we are cognizant of the Third District’s decision in Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74, 77-78 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1997), wherein the panel refused “to adopt the defendants’ position that one can always avoid operation of the economic loss doctrine by merely pleading fraud in the inducement” and held that “Misrepresentations relating to the breaching party’s performance of a contract do not give rise to an independent cause of action in tort, because such misrepresentations are interwoven and indistinct from the heart of the contractual agreement.” In fact, we join the Third District in this holding. The case before us, however, does not involve circumstances where the misrepresentations “re-latte] to the breaching party’s performance of a contract” or where “the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation is inseparable from the essence of the parties’ agreement.” 694 So. 2d at 78.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vesta Constr. & Design, L.L.C. v. Lotspeich & Assocs., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…a transaction.... However, where the fraud complained of relates to the performance of the contract, the economic loss doctrine will limit the parties to their contractual remedies.”) (citations omitted); Wadlington v. Continental Med. Serv., Inc., 728 So. 2d 352, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (explaining that only those “negligent misrepresentation^] [made] independent of the breach of contract are not barred by the economic loss rule.”); Straub Capital Corp. v. L. Frank Chopin, P.A., 724 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4t…
Authorities Cited
- HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1996)
- Hotels OF KEY Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Monco Enters., Inc. v. Ziebart Corp., 673 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- TGI Dev., Inc. v. CV Reit, Inc., 665 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- CV Reit, Inc. v. TGI Dev., Inc., 689 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1996)
- Young v. Young, 682 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)