ALAN STOLER, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAROLD WOLF ET AL., 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.
A dentist sued Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for tortious misrepresentation after the company allegedly failed to perform promised management functions for his professional association's pension plan, requiring him to incur substantial legal fees. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that promises of future performance cannot constitute actionable fraud.
The dismissal of the complaint was proper because promises of future performance do not constitute actionable tortious misrepresentation, and general representations about a company's facilities and proximity to plaintiff's office do not constitute fraud.
[1] A promise to do something in the future, even if it induces another to enter into a contract, is not fraud in a legal sense.
[2] An unfulfilled promise does not necessarily amount to a false promise 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 promise which is merely unfulfilled does not necessarily amount to a false promise”
Establishes the principle that breach of an unfulfilled promise does not constitute fraud
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a dentist, sought to establish a pension plan for his professional association. Appellees promised certain management functions related to …
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 Tortious Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, brought an action against the appellees for tortious misrepresentation. The complaint alleged that plaintiff, a dentist, sought to put into effect a pension plan for plaintiff’s professional association. *
Plaintiff charged that certain promised management functions respecting this pension plan were never performed by the appellees, and plaintiff was required to incur substantial legal fees. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, but after plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint a final order of dismissal was entered by the court on March' 16, 1973.
Appellant contends that dismissal of the complaint was improper because the complaint stated a valid cause of action for misrepresentation. We disagree. Appellant relies on Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Company, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 477, as authority to support his cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.
In that case, this court held that an action for fraudulent misrepresentation would lie where the plaintiff had purchased a “non-cancellable” policy which was cancelled without stated reason within two months of the date of purchase.
That case is distinguishable from the cause sub judice. As was stated in Brod v. Jernigan, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 575, a promise which is merely unfulfilled does not necessarily amount to a false promise. The court therein also noted that a promise to do something in the future is not fraud in a legal sense, even if the promise induces another to enter into a contract. See also, Evans v. Gray, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 40.
In the instant case, the management of plaintiff’s pension plan involved promises of future performance, and therefore is not actionable for tortious misrepresentation. We also do not think that certain alleged representations made by appellees concerning the' “tremendous facilities” of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the close proximity of the company to plaintiff’s office constitutes fraud. 14 Fla.Jur. Fraud and Deceit § 13.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson, 382 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ity. Sutton v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 138 Fla. 692, 189 So. 828 (1939); Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1969); Stoler v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 287 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The plaintiffs argue that England’s statement concerned an existing fact of company policy. We believe the jury properly could have found England’s statement to be one of fact. Where a person fraudulently and positively, as with…
-
Sleight v. SUN & Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…o be the basis of a claim for relief sounding in fraud. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29 (1905). A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud. Stoler v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 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. The record before us is entirely devoid of any evidence to support a theory of fraud or conspiracy…
-
Maunsell v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…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 fra…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Parker v. State, 249 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)