La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. v. Moran
704 So. 2d 710, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6, 1998 WL 2509 (1998)
Rule of Law:
A claim for fraud in the inducement of a contract is a distinct cause of action from a claim for breach of contract, and it is not precluded merely because the damages sought for the fraud are identical to those that might be sought for the breach.
Facts:
- Marie and Ron Groba formed La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. (LPG Charters), a Texas corporation, to operate a fifty-foot yacht named the 'Taurus' as a charter boat.
- LPG Charters purchased the 'Taurus' for $250,000 from Wild Dog, Inc. in June 1994.
- Ron Bowling was the president of Wild Dog, Inc., the seller of the 'Taurus.'
- The Grobas hired Michael H. Moran to conduct an inspection of the 'Taurus' prior to the purchase, allegedly upon Bowling's recommendation.
- Bowling allegedly made several representations to LPG Charters to induce the purchase, including that the engines had been recently rebuilt with only 400 hours, the boat contained new turbos, the hull was in sound and seaworthy condition, and the fire extinguisher system was in sound working order.
- After the sale, as the 'Taurus' was en route to Texas, it caught fire and was badly damaged.
Procedural Posture:
- La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. (LPG Charters) sued Wild Dog, Inc., Ron Bowling, and Michael H. Moran in a trial court (court of first instance) in May 1995.
- LPG Charters filed a third amended complaint, including a count for fraud (Count VI) against Ron Bowling.
- The trial court dismissed some claims, including the contract claim against Bowling and all claims against Moran.
- The trial court dismissed Count VI (the fraud claim) against Bowling with prejudice, reasoning that the fraud count could not survive because it sought identical damages to those for the breach of contract claim.
- LPG Charters (Appellants) appealed the dismissal of the fraud claim against Bowling to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fact that a complaint seeks identical damages for both a fraud in the inducement claim and a breach of contract claim against a corporate officer justify dismissing the fraud claim for failure to state a cause of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, Chief Judge
No, the trial court erred in dismissing the fraud claim against Bowling merely because the damages sought were identical to those for breach of contract. The court clarified that fraud in the inducement and breach of contract are distinct causes of action with separate remedies, citing HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A. The HTP decision emphasized the distinction between fraud 'extraneous to the contract' (fraud in the inducement) and fraud 'interwoven with the breach of contract' (fraud in the performance). If a knowing false statement of fact induces someone to enter a contract, a cause of action for fraud exists, even if the fraudulent representation is also included as a warranty in the contract, and even if the damages are the same as those for a breach. The court reasoned that failing to recognize this distinction would allow a knowing fraud to be extinguished by simply including the fraudulent representation in the contract. The economic loss rule does not bar a tort claim based on conduct separate and distinct from the breach of contract, provided the fraud itself causes damage. The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged knowing false statements (engines rebuilt, new turbos) made to induce the purchase, thus stating a claim for fraud in the inducement.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between fraud in the inducement and breach of contract claims in Florida, particularly regarding the economic loss rule and the measure of damages. By asserting that identical damages do not preclude a fraud in the inducement claim, the court reinforces the principle that a tort for fraudulent conduct causing someone to enter a contract is independent of the contract itself. This ruling protects plaintiffs from being stripped of tort remedies simply because a fraudulent representation later becomes a term of the contract, thereby preserving an important avenue for redress against bad faith conduct in contractual formations.
