Andrew Douglas, P.A. > Articles & Blog > Quick Answers on Florida Law > FloridaCivilLaw > Florida Law: Breach of Contract and Fraud

Florida Law: Breach of Contract and Fraud

Posted · Add Comment
Florida Law Quick Answers

When is a breach of contract also a claim for fraud?

The economic loss rule precludes actions in tort which are completely economic and which arise out of contract. Under Florida law, the economic loss rule operates to bar tort claims for purely economic loss in cases involving a defendant who is a manufacturer or distributor of a product or where the parties have contractual privity. See Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 2004).

If the parties have contractual privity, and a claim for tort simply restates a claim for breach of contract, the tort claim is barred. Eclipse Med., Inc. v. Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999), aff’d, 235 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Thompkins v. Lil’ Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1316 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that the fraud claim was the exact basis for the breach of contract claim and that the economic loss rule “probably” applied); Time Int’l, S.A. v. Safilo U.S.A., Inc., 802 So. 2d 382, 383-84 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (stating that a claim for fraud in the inducement is not barred by the economic loss rule as a matter of law, but if the claim is not independent of contract, then the economic loss rule will apply).

Underlying the economic loss rule is the assumption that the parties to a contract have allocated the economic risks of nonperformance through the bargaining process. A party to a contract who attempts to circumvent the contractual agreement by making a claim for economic loss in tort is, in effect, seeking to obtain a better bargain than he originally made. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 2004).
The only exception to the economic loss rule to plead fraud in a contract arena is fraudulent inducement.

“To state a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, the Plaintiff must allege (a) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (b) that the representor of the misrepresentation knew or should have known of the statement’s falsity; (c) that the representor intended that the representation would induce another to rely and act on it; and (d) that the plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance on the representation.” Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (emphasis added.)

See Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 764 So. 2d 677, 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2000), The potential for recovery of both punitive damages and consequential tort damages makes the pleading of an alternative count alleging fraud in the inducement extremely tempting in breach of contract cases. In Puff ‘ N Stuff of Winter Park, Inc. v. Bell, 683 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), Judge Harris recognized this problem in a special concurrence when he observed that “almost any contract claim can also be framed as a fraud in the inducement action.” Id. at 1179 (Harris, J., specially concurring). Judge Griffin responded in a dissenting opinion, however, that the problem should be resolved by the courts requiring specific allegations of all of the necessary elements of fraud. See id. at (Griffin, J., dissenting). Judge Griffin stated, I agree with Judge Harris that fraud is a much overused and misused cause of action. Its abuse has been fueled by the access it provides to otherwise unavailable discovery and to punitive damages. Its misuse has been exacerbated by Florida’s embrace of the “promissory” form of fraud whereby a promise made with no intent to perform is deemed actionable as fraud. Unfortunately, too many cases have gotten to the jury and large tort verdicts have been rendered on a theory of fraud that had no business being anything other than breach of contract.

The problem is not with the distinction between fraud and breach of contract, however, the problem lies in our courts’ failure to appreciate or require competent proof of the distinct elements. The statement that virtually any breach of contract action can be pleaded as fraud in the inducement proves the point. Every breach of contract cannot be pleaded as fraud in the inducement–at least, not properly. Certainly, the classic type of fraud present in this case–a knowingly false representation of fact–requires a specific allegation of such a false representation. Even “promissory fraud,  ” however, requires a specific allegation (and ultimate proof) that the promise was made with no intent to perform.

Andrew Douglas, P.A., A Florida Commercial Litigation Attorney. Please feel free to contact us to discuss your legal needs.


At Andrew Douglas, P.A. our Florida Construction Attorneys and Commercial litigation Attorneys handle cases in all of Broward County including Coconut Creek, Cooper City, Coral Springs, Dania, Davie, Deerfield Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale, Hillsboro Beach, Hollywood, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Lauderdale Lakes, Lauderhill, Lazy Lake Village, Lighthouse Point, Margate, Miramar, North Lauderdale, Oakland Park, Parkland, Pembroke Park, Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Pompano Beach, Sea Ranch Lakes, Southwest Ranches, Sunrise, Tamarac, Weston, Wilton Manors, and Unincorporated Broward, and all cities in Miami-Dade County including Aventura, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands, Brickell, Carol City, Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, Florida City, Hialeah, Homestead, Kendall, Key Biscayne, Medley, Miami, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Shores, Miami Springs, Normandy, North Bay Village, North Miami, North Miami Beach, Opa Locka, Perrine, Pinecrest, Snapper Creek, South Miami, Sunny Isles Beach, Surfside, Sweetwater and all areas of Palm Beach County, the Florida Keys, and all of South Florida. Andrew Douglas, P.A., a Florida Construction Attorney and Commercial Litigation Attorney serving all of Florida.

Disclaimer/Terms of Use for this Website
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The materials contained within Andrew Douglas, P.A.'s website(s) provide general information about the law and the law firm and do not constitute legal advice. They are intended for informational purposes only. The firm does not seek to represent anyone desiring representation in any jurisdiction where this website does not comply with that jurisdiction’s laws and ethical rules. The supplied e-mail contact, submission forms, and other services of this site should not be used to send any privileged or confidential information. Contacting Andrew Douglas, P.A. or use of this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, do not convey any privileged or confidential information to the firm unless and until a formal attorney-client relationship is established. Use of any information from this site and use of any online service, including but not limited to, the Florida LienMachine, does not establish an attorney-client relationship and shall not constitute legal advice. Andrew Douglas, P.A. only provides legal advice and counsel to retained clients. All materials and services provided through this website are provided without warranty, for informational purposes only, and are to be used at the user's own risk.