Lexplug logoLexplug

PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida
842 So. 2d 773 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) applies to private causes of action arising from a single unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce. It does not require a plaintiff to show a pattern of multiple violative acts against multiple parties.


Facts:

  • In September 1994, PNR, Inc. purchased a restaurant and was assigned the existing lease for its space in a building owned by Ocean One North, Inc.
  • Ocean One was co-owned by Ernest W. Willis, who also owned Beacon Property Management, Inc., the company that managed the building.
  • The lease assigned to PNR specified that the building owner, Ocean One, was responsible for keeping major structural components in good repair.
  • Despite the lease terms, an Ocean One co-owner, Matt Giacomino, consistently directed PNR to address all maintenance requests to Beacon.
  • PNR experienced persistent maintenance issues, including roof leaks and tar leaking through the air conditioning, and its requests to Beacon for repairs were ignored.
  • The building's condition deteriorated, leading to numerous code violations and the eventual collapse of the building's north wall on July 1, 1995.
  • The collapse forced PNR's restaurant to cease operations for seven months, after which PNR was evicted and ultimately went out of business.
  • Evidence suggested that Willis and Beacon may have intentionally neglected the building as part of a separate business dispute with Giacomino.

Procedural Posture:

  • PNR, Inc. sued Beacon Property Management, Inc. and Ernest W. Willis in a Florida trial court for multiple causes of action, including violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
  • After an eight-day trial, a jury returned a verdict for PNR on its FDUTPA claim, awarding substantial damages.
  • Beacon and Willis, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment on the FDUTPA claim, holding that the act requires a pattern of misconduct, not just an isolated act concerning a single party.
  • PNR, Inc., as petitioner, sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida, arguing that the Fourth District's decision directly conflicted with rulings from other Florida appellate districts.

Locked

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 Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) apply to a private cause of action arising from a single unfair or deceptive act involving only one party and one transaction?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Lewis

Yes. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) applies to private causes of action arising from single unfair or deceptive acts, even if they involve only a single party or transaction. The district court erred by focusing only on the words 'methods' and 'practices' while ignoring the word 'acts' in the statute. The plain language of the FDUTPA, including multiple references to 'an act' or 'a violation' in its remedial sections, demonstrates the Legislature's intent to protect against misdeeds directed to a single party. Unlike other statutes where the Legislature explicitly required a 'general business practice,' no such language exists in FDUTPA, confirming that a single act is sufficient to trigger its protections.


Dissenting - Justice Wells

No. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) is not intended to convert every breach of a lease contract into a statutory claim under the Act. This case is fundamentally a breach of contract dispute, not a deceptive trade practice case. The majority's decision risks blurring this distinction and will encourage parties to turn simple contract breaches into FDUTPA litigation. The court should have discharged jurisdiction as the facts are plainly distinguishable from the cases cited for conflict.


Dissenting - Senior Justice Harding

Jurisdiction should be discharged as improvidently granted. There is no genuine conflict between the lower court's decision and other appellate decisions that would sustain this Court's jurisdiction to hear the case.



Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the application of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by clarifying that it protects against single, isolated wrongful acts. It resolves a conflict among Florida's appellate districts, establishing a uniform, plaintiff-friendly standard across the state. By lowering the threshold for a viable FDUTPA claim from a 'pattern' of conduct to a single 'act,' the ruling empowers individual consumers and businesses to seek remedies for one-off instances of unfair or deceptive conduct. This interpretation reinforces the statute's remedial purpose but also increases potential liability for businesses in individual disputes that might have previously been treated only as simple breach of contract claims.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc. (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"