Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Enrique R. Antezana v. Kimley-Horn Assocs., Inc. & City of Miramar, No. 4D2024-0486 (Fla. 4th DCA May 7, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 786 Elements of negligent misrepresentation and fiduciary duty breach35 citing casesTo prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (27 citing courts put it this way · 34 listed here
  • Enrique R. Antezana v. Kimley-Horn Assocs., Inc. & City of Miramar, No. 4D2024-0486 (Fla. 4th DCA May 7, 2025).published
    Clinic, Inc. v. Sultan, 656 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).
  • De Ford v. Koutoulas, No. 6:22-cv-00652 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2024).
    Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 607 F.3d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).
  • Alpha Beta Apparel, Inc. v. GoLite Brands, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-01278 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2023).
    Fla. Jan. 5, 2023) (quoting Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 127 F.3d 1390 , 1393–94 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Loc. 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. Dist.
  • Treminio v. Crowley Mar. Corp., 649 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2023).published
    Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 127 F.3d 1390 , 1393-94 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)); see also Tiara Condo.
  • Darren White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist., 302 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).published
    As for the negligent misrepresentation claim, it requires: (1) . . . a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or s…
  • Pirate's Treasure, Inc. v. City of Dunedin, Florida, 277 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).published
    (stating substantially identical elements for negligent misrepresentation except that the defendant's state of mind must be either intentional or negligent and the plaintiff must have acted in justifiable reliance)
  • Oscar Varela Garcia v. Richard Diaz, No. 17-10841 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2018).unpublished
    Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 607 F.3d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. Dist.
  • Charles W. Grimes & Brenda Grimes v. Kevin R. Lottes, 241 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).published
    “the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representation was false”
  • Byrnes v. Small, 142 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (M.D. Fla. 2015).published
    “(1) there was a misrepresentation of mar terial fact; (2) the representer .either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representat…”
  • Gallon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 150 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).published 2 cites
    “(1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representation…”
Show 24 more citing cases
  • In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 996 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014).published
    Although these cases are only persuasive, the elements required to state a claim for negligence are similar regardless of the jurisdiction. .See, e.g., Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.Dist.Ct.
  • Mukamal v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. (In re Palm Beach Fin. Partners, L.P.), 517 B.R. 310 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013).published
    Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).
  • Fuller v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2012).published
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Drilling Consultants, Inc. v. First Montauk Sec. Corp., 806 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2011).published
    Rothis v. M & I Marshall & Isley Bank, 2010 WL 3893960 , *5 (M.D.Fla.2010) (quoting Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). 7 “Neither an opinion nor a *1237 promise of future action supports…
  • Scelta v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 404 F. App'x 92 (8th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    See Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So.2d 62, 69 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000); Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993).
  • Girgis v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ohio 2010).published 2 cites
    “Where a breach of a fiduciary duty between a bank and its customer has been found, it is generally possible to identify a benefit flowing to the bank as a result”
  • Tiara Condo. Ass'n v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 607 F.3d 742 (11th Cir. 2010).published
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993).
  • Levine v. Wyeth Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2010).published
    “To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of i…”
  • Smith v. Carnival Corp., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2008).published 2 cites
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Mulligan v. Frank Found. Child Assistance, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2008).published
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Mulligan v. Frank Found. Child Assistance Int'l, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (M.D. Fla. 2008).published
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Coral Gables Distrib., Inc. v. Milich, 992 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).published
    (To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2)
  • Ruiz v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc., 949 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).published
    (To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2)
  • Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).published
    See Romo, 930 So.2d at 653 ; Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App.1993); Wallerstein v. Hosp.
  • Pinnacle Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Fam. Mortg. Corp., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Minn. 2006).published 2 cites
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.Ct.App.1993) (citation omitted).
  • Foreline Sec. Corp. v. Scott, 871 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).published
    E.g., Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2002).published
    Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). 14 The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on count I must be granted because the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to satisfy the first requirement for negligent m…
  • Garland v. Advanced Med. Fund, LP II, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Ga. 2000).published
    (setting out elements of negligent misrepresentation)
  • Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade Cnty. Esoil Mgmt. Co., 982 F. Supp. 873 (S.D. Fla. 1997).published
    Florida Women’s Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Sul *879 tan, 656 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Baggett v. Electricians Local 915, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).
  • Fla. Women's Med. Clinic v. Sultan, 656 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).published
    Baggett v. Electricians Local 915, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Recreational Design & Constr., Inc. v. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assocs., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2011).published
    (To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be *1303 shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2)
  • United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 134 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).published
    (setting forth elements of negligent misrepresentation as; (1) a misrepresentation of material fact; (2)
  • Rocky Creek Ret. Props., Inc. v. Est. of Fox Ex Rel. Bank of Am., N.A., 19 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).published
    Nat’l Bank of Fla. v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
  • Simon v. Celebration Co., 883 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).published
    (Civ.) MI 8; see also Baggett v. Electricians Local 915, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
At page 785 Analyzing claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty6 citing casesbased on the terms of a contract entered into by the parties. Baggett argues the trial court improperly treated the instant case as one for breach of contract,…opening of page *785 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles E. BAGGETT, Appellant,
v.
ELECTRICIANS LOCAL 915 CREDIT UNION, Appellee.
92-02397.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Apr 30, 1993.
Published opinion
620 So. 2d 784
1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4975
1993 WL 135715
Hall.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published

William A. Wares, Tampa, for appellant.

Steven G. Burton of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

HALL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Charles E. Baggett, contends the trial court erred in granting summary final judgment in favor of the appellee, Electricians Local 915 Credit Union,[*785] based on the terms of a contract entered into by the parties. Baggett argues the trial court improperly treated the instant case as one for breach of contract, though the second-amended complaint set forth causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty only. Baggett contends that since there are genuine issues of fact remaining as to his theories of liability, summary judgment here was inappropriate. We agree and reverse.

In February 1989, Baggett placed $40,000 in a certificate of deposit with the credit union. The certificate was titled in the name of "Charles E. Baggett, I.T.F. [In Trust For], Randy E. Baggett." Randy E. Baggett is appellant Baggett's son. Randy Baggett was incarcerated at the time appellant Baggett made the deposit at issue.

Fearing that his ex-wife might attempt to withdraw the funds placed on deposit, Baggett sought the advice of the credit union's assistant manager, Irene Avise, as to how his certificate of deposit should be titled so that only he could access the funds. Ms. Avise allegedly advised Baggett that to protect the funds the title on the certificate should read "Randy E. Baggett or Charles E. Baggett."

In his complaint, Baggett alleged that solely in reliance on Ms. Avise's advice, he converted his initial certificate of deposit to a new one titled as Ms. Avise suggested. Approximately one month thereafter, Baggett's former wife presented to the credit union a power of attorney from Randy E. Baggett and withdrew the sum of $28,035 from Baggett's certificate of deposit account. Baggett thus filed the instant action, alleging that by virtue of the actions of Ms. Avise, the credit union was guilty of negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

In its motion for summary judgment, the credit union alleged there were no genuine issues of material fact because it had done everything it was legally bound to do under the terms of the certificate of deposit, as well as the terms of a joint share agreement executed in connection with the certificate of deposit. The credit union also asserted that its relationship with Baggett was regulated by section 657.035(1), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides that credit union shares and deposits held in the name of more than one person "may be paid to, or pursuant to the order of" any of the persons named on a given account without the credit union incurring liability therefor.

In opposition to the credit union's motion, Baggett filed the affidavit of Herbert Berkowitz, his attorney in the trial court. Berkowitz stated that in August 1989, he had a conversation with Ms. Avise in which she indicated that she had indeed advised Baggett to convert his original certificate of deposit to a new one titled in the names of Baggett or his son. Berkowitz stated that Ms. Avise told him that she had advised Baggett to place the funds at issue in a "joint name" certificate of deposit because such required two signatures for withdrawal. Berkowitz also stated he had known Baggett for "a number of years" and that it was his opinion that "Charles E. Baggett could not have understood the nature of the joint account cards, certificates of deposit, and other documents and instruments that are the subject of this lawsuit generated by the credit union."

After a hearing on the credit union's motion, the trial court determined that the credit union was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, the trial court found that the controversy was governed by contract and that the credit union had done everything it was legally bound to do under that contract. The trial court further found that "Plaintiff's assertions, that certain representations made by the credit union's representative ... caused the Plaintiff to suffer damage ... are inadmissible pursuant to the parole evidence rule to vary, contradict, or add to the terms of an unambiguous instrument." For that reason, the trial court held there were no genuine issues of fact.

While final agreements may not be contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence an exception is made in actions alleging negligent misrepresentation or, otherwise, fraud in the inducement. In such cases,[*786] the parol evidence rule does not preclude admission of extrinsic evidence. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570 So.2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Nobles v. Citizens Mortgage Corp., 479 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Florida Pottery Stores of Panama City v. American National Bank, 578 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Tinker v. De Maria Porche Audi, Inc., 459 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representation was false; (3) the representer intended to induce another to act on the misrepresentation; and (4) injury resulted to a party acting in justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation. Atlantic National Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

To demonstrate a breach of a fiduciary duty, it must be shown that influence by one party was acquired and abused to the detriment of another party. Id. at 1332. Where a breach of a fiduciary duty between a bank and its customer has been found, it is generally possible to identify a benefit flowing to the bank as a result. Id. at 1333.

The record shows the trial court entered a summary final judgment against Baggett based strictly on the terms of the joint share agreement, the certificate of deposit, and section 657.035. While such a determination would have been appropriate relative to an action for breach of contract, the trial court failed to make any findings as to the specific causes of action asserted by Baggett in his second-amended complaint. Since there appear to be genuine issues as to whether there was a negligent misrepresentation and whether Baggett failed to understand the situation and justifiably relied upon that misrepresentation — and also whether there was a breach of a fiduciary duty — summary judgment here was entirely inappropriate.

Accordingly, the summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.