Poliakoff v. Nat'l Emblem Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Poliakoff v. Nat'l Emblem Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bennett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (fladistctapp, 2017-09-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Co., 249 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (The essential elements of fraud are ... resulting damage to the plaintiff.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frank J. Pettinelli v. Edmund R. Danzig
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Co., 249 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Louis F. Cavic and Helen A. Cavic, His Wife, Cross-Appellants v. The Grand Bahama Development Company, Limited, Cross-Appellee (2×)
11th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
The common law remedy for fraud “imposes upon the plaintiff the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, ‘(1) a false statement of fact; (2) known by the defendant to be false at the time it was made; (3) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act in reliance thereon....’” Hudak v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc., 499 F.2d 996, 1000 (5th Cir.1974), quoting Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Company, 249 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla.App., 3d Dist.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,210 Nelson C. Cameron, Jr., and Helen S. Cameron, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc., Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross Associates Capital Corp., Etc., Joseph E. Karl and Dorothy A. Karl, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc., Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross Associates Capital Corp., Etc.
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1968) (anticipated performance of air condition unit); Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Co, 249 So.2d at 478 (no anticipated cancellation of insurance policy).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cameron v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc. (2×)
5th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Entron, Inc. v. General Cablevision, 435 F.2d 995, 997 (5th Cir. 1970); Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Co., 249 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 254 So.2d 790 (Fla.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cyril M. HUDAK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECONOMIC RESEARCH ANALYSTS, INC., and Richard W. McIntyre, Defendants-Appellants
5th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
The common law remedy imposes upon the plaintiff the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, “(1) a false statement of fact; (2) known by the defendant to be false at the time it was made; (3) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act in reliance thereon . . . .” Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Company, 249 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla.App., 3rd Dist. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Perper v. Daniels
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poliakoff v. National Emblem Insurance Company, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 477 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary A. POLIAKOFF, Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL EMBLEM INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Appellee.
70-925.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jun 8, 1971.
249 So. 2d 477
Pearson, C.J., and Charles Carroll and Barkdull.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*478] Becker & Kimler, Miami, for appellant.

Adams, George, & Wood and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for damages upon a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellee urges that the complaint was properly dismissed because it showed upon its face that the action was barred by that portion of F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A., which provides:

"No action shall be brought * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized."

Thus it appears that we are faced with conflicting theories of the case. Appellant construes his action as one in tort for fraudulent misrepresentation. Appellees see the action as one upon an oral agreement. The complaint alleges: (1) The appellee, National Emblem, was doing business in Florida as an automobile insurance company; the appellee, Bryan, was the agent and employee of National Emblem. (2) The appellant made a disclosure to the appellees of his driving record and his wish to buy a "non-cancellable" insurance policy. Appellees represented that they would sell him a "non-cancellable" policy. Appellees' representation was knowingly made and false. (3) Appellant acted upon the false representation by purchasing a policy which was cancelled without stated reason within two months of the date of purchase.

The essential elements of fraud are: (1) a false statement of fact; (2) known by the defendant to be false at the time it was made; (3) made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act in reliance thereon; (4) action by the plaintiff in reliance on the correctness of the representation; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff. Finney v. Frost, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 617; Abbate v. Nolan, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 433; Tonkovich v. South Florida Citrus Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 185 So.2d 710 (cause remanded[*479] Fla. 1967, 196 So.2d 438 and Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 579). Using these elements as a guide, we hold that the complaint stated a cause of action.

We point out that we are not here concerned with the proof of appellant's complaint. Therefore, appellee's reliance upon Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.[1] and Rowland v. Ewell[2] is not well placed because those cases deal with the proof and enforcement of oral contracts.

Reversed and remanded with directions to deny defendants' motion to dismiss.

Reversed.

1 Fla. 1966, 190 So.2d 777.
2 Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 78.