FAHED FAYAD, M.D.

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, ETC.

1 The parties also raise several secondary issues on appeal and cross appeal that we summarily affirm without further discussion. Fayad presented no evidence of detrimental reliance as to the University’s purported fraudulent representations. See Bailey v. Covington, 317 So. 3d 1223, 1227–28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (setting forth the elements of a fraud claim including “consequent injury by the other party acting in reliance on the representation”) (citing Lopez-Infante v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 809 So. 2d 13, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)); Hillcrest Pac. Corp. v. Yamamura, 727 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same); see also Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 136 So. 3d 647, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“GEICO argues that the trial court should have granted its motion for directed verdict because Mrs. Hoy failed to establish the damages element of her claim for fraud in the inducement. We agree.”); Perlman v. Ferman Corp., 611 So. 2d 1340, 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“Ordinarily, a party would be entitled to a directed verdict where the party claiming fraud fails to adduce evidence that a jury could properly utilize to determine the legal damages, if any, caused by the fraud.”). As to the cross-appeal, Dr. Fayad’s breach of contract claims are predicated entirely on the hospital’s bylaws and incorporated rules and regulations, which apply to medical staff and admitting physicians. However, these bylaws contain no language obligating the University or hospital to enforce them, afford no rights to physicians adversely affected by the University’s policy decisions (including closure of the hospital), and specifically disclaim any intent to be construed as creating a contract between the University or hospital and admitting physicians. It is axiomatic no breach of contract claim exists without first establishing a valid, enforceable contract. See, e.g., Murciano v. Garcia, 958 So. 2d 423, 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[T]o prevail on a breach of contract action, [the plaintiff] must prove (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.”). In short, Dr. Fayad failed to present evidence of an enforceable contract, let alone one that was breached, causing him damages. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted a directed verdict on the fraudulent inducement claim. And as explained above, based on the evidence presented, on remand, the trial court is compelled to grant directed verdict in favor of the University on the breach of contract claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.