negligent misrepresentation claim in Florida

2004Also, in Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1997), the supreme court recognized that a negligent misrepresentation claim is properly submitted to the trier of fact, where a vendor of property furnished the buyer with a year-old appraisal containing an erroneous zoning classification.

2001In Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So.2d 334, 339 (Fla.1997), the court considered a question from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a party who negligently transmits false information may be held liable if the recipient establishes a negligent misrepresentation claim in accordance with § 552, Restatement (Second) of Torts.

2017See Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (reiterating justifiable reliance is an element of a negligent misrepresentation claim but not a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 cmt. a (1977) (“The liability stated in this Section is likewise more restricted than that for fraudulent misrepresentation stated in § 531.

2017See Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (reiterating justifiable reliance is an element of a negligent misrepresentation claim but not a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 cmt. a (1977) (“The liability stated in this Section is likewise more restricted than that for fraudulent misrepresentation stated in § 531.

2020As 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 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 Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Atlantic Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Vest, 480 So. 2

2013See Ladner v. AmSouth Bank, 32 So.3d 99, 102-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (recognizing that a material omission in the formation of an agreement is grounds for a negligent misrepresentation claim); see also Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (setting forth elements of negligent misrepresentation as; (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 should have known the representation was false; (3) the representer intended to in

2025Clinic, 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)).

2011Clinic, Inc. v. Sultan, *666 656 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (first element of a negligent misrepresentation claim is “a misrepresentation of material fact”) (citation omitted).

2022Simon v. Celebration Co., 883 So. 2d 826, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

2020As 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 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 Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Atlantic Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Vest, 480 So. 2

2019See City of Dunedin v. Pirate's Treasure, Inc., 255 So. 3d 902, 905-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

2018See Manfre v. Shinkle, 184 So. 3d 641, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA -7- 2016) ("[A]s a threshold matter, there can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care was owed to the injured party." (citing Wallace, 3 So. 3d at 1044-45 )).

2018See Manfre v. Shinkle, 184 So. 3d 641, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA -7- 2016) ("[A]s a threshold matter, there can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care was owed to the injured party." (citing Wallace, 3 So. 3d at 1044-45 )).

2013See Ladner v. AmSouth Bank, 32 So.3d 99, 102-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (recognizing that a material omission in the formation of an agreement is grounds for a negligent misrepresentation claim); see also Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (setting forth elements of negligent misrepresentation as; (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 should have known the representation was false; (3) the representer intended to in

2008Additionally, we note that there is another "narrow exception to the economic loss rule which has been applied in certain limited circumstances" based upon section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. [4] Russell v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 767 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2008Compare Russell, 767 So.2d at 593 with Fla. Women's Med.

2004Recently, in D & M Jupiter, Inc. v. Friedopfer, 853 So.2d 485, 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), this court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the seller, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the seller's statement, made within an offer of sale memorandum that the property's site drainage requirements were met, could be found to be a misrepresentation.

2004Still, Florida public policy prohibits "one who purposely uses false information to induce another into a transaction from profiting from such wrongdoing." M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. v. Azam, 813 So.2d 91, 96 (Fla.2002) (quoting Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So.2d 334, 336-37 (Fla.1997)).

2001The court made clear that the application of the latter doctrine distinguishes a negligent misrepresentation claim from a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation under the court's ruling in Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980), in which the court held that a recipient may rely on the truthfulness of a representation, even if the falsity could have been ascertained through investigation by the recipient, unless the recipient knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious. 696 So.2d at 336 .

2001With regard to a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, this holding in Pressman conflicts with the supreme court's holding in Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995, 998 (Fla. 1980), in which the supreme court expressly stated with regard to a fraudulent misrepresentation that "a recipient may rely on the truth of a representation, even though its falsity could have been ascertained had he made an investigation, unless he knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him." For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that appellants' claims of neg