CONCEPT STORES MIAMI, INC, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BAKERY ASSOCIATES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 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.
Concept Stores Miami appealed the dismissal of its fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Bakery Associates and Simon Property Group entities. The court affirmed, holding that the economic loss rule barred tort recovery where the alleged misrepresentations were inseparably embodied in or directly related to the parties' written contract.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the economic loss rule bars recovery for fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims where the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are inseparably embodied in the parties' subsequent agreement or directly related to a party's contractual performance.
[1] The economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for claims that are inseparable from the essence of a parties' agreement.
[2] A party cannot recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that are adequately covered or expressly contradicted in a later written contract.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“where the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are inseparably embodied in the parties' subsequent agreement, the Economic Loss Rule will apply”
Establishes the core holding that fraudulent misrepresentations cannot support tort recovery when inseparable from the contract
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConcept Stores Miami entered into a transaction with Bakery Associates and Simon Property Group entities. The plaintiff alleged that defendants made 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 Puffing cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Affirmed. See Taylor v. Maness, 941 So. 2d 559, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (observing that plaintiffs were seeking to recover damages in tort for a matter which arose from a breach of contract claim and thus deciding that “the trial court properly concluded that the economic loss rule barred recovery for the fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims”); Mac-Gray Servs., Inc. v. DeGeorge, 913 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (considering statements claimed to have been relied on and observing “[e]ven if we considered these material statements, rather than mere puffing, the contract precludes reliance on them. A party cannot recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that are adequately covered or expressly contradicted in a later written contract.”); Giallo v. New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stating “a party cannot recover for fraudulent oral representations which are covered in or contradicted by a later written agreement”); Bates v. Rosigue, 777 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding “where the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are inseparably embodied in the parties’ subsequent agreement, the Economic Loss Rule will apply”); J Square Enters. v. Regner, 734 So. 2d 565, 566-67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (observing that fraudulent inducement is an independent tort in that it requires proof of facts separate and distinct from the breach of contract); Clayton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 729 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding “where the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation is inseparable from the essence of the parties’ agreement, the economic loss rule still applies”); Straub Capital Corp. v.
L. Frank Chopin, P.A., 724 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (concluding that the economic loss rule barred commercial tenants’ claim against landlord for negligent misrepre sentation, where alleged misrepresentations were directly related to landlord’s performance under lease); Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (observing “where the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation is inseparable from the essence of the parties’ agreement, the economic loss rule applies and the parties are limited to pursuing their rights in contract”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PAN Am. W., Ltd. v. Cardinal Commercial Dev., LLC, 50 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…o, and later made part of, the owner’s contractual obligations under the first addendum. Thus, the economic loss rule applies, and [*73] bars the buyer’s claims for negligent misrepresentation. See Concept Stores Miami, Inc. v. Bakery Assocs., Ltd., 990 So. 2d 1118, 1118-19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Taylor v. Maness, 941 So. 2d 559, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Straub Capital Corp. v. L. Frank Chopin, P.A., 724 So. 2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trial court properly ruled that the owner was entitled to judgment as…
Authorities Cited
- Hotels OF KEY Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Mac-Gray Servs., Inc. v. DeGEORGE, 913 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Taylor v. Maness, 941 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Straub Cap. Corp. v. L. Frank Chopin, P.A., 724 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Dentaland, P.A. v. ST. Stephen Ltd. P'ship, 729 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- J Square Enters. v. Regner, 734 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Bentley v. State, 855 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Giallo v. NEW Piper Aircraft, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Bates v. Rosique, 777 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)