Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Justifiable Reliance Required for Fraudulent Inducement Claim

By David Greene  on June 26, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the necessity of justifiable reliance for a claim of for fraudulent inducement. In the case of Terry L. Norman v. Jack “Jackson” Padgett, Mark Negrete, George L. Kessinger, Adam Burnett and Ronald F. Gofrank, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1342a (4th DCA 6/19/13), the purchasers of shares of stock in a business called Gat Bar, Inc. asserted a claim against Terry Norman (“Norman”) for fraudulent inducement. After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment against Norman with respect to the fraud claim.

Since the issue presented was the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the fraud claim, the appellate court reviewed the judgment applying a de novo standard of review. The Court quoted from Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla. 1980), for the proposition that:

The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation is not justified in relying upon its truth if he knows that it is false or its falsity is obvious to him.

The basis for the fraud claim was an alleged misrepresentation by Norman concerning the business’s weekly payroll expenses. Specifically, Norman allegedly told the purchasers that those costs would be $17,500 per week and, instead, they turned out to be more than $15,000 more than that. However, the Fourth DCA stated that one of the purchasers had prepared a document before purchasing the business that included an assumption that the total labor costs would exceed $35,000 per week. Based upon that assumption, the Court determined that the purchasers “were either aware of the falsity of the alleged misrepresentation or its falsity would have been obvious to them.” Accordingly, the Court determined that Norman could not be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and reversed the judgment that had been entered against him. Put another way, a claim for fraudulent inducement cannot be maintained where there is no justifiable reliance.

Norman is an important ruling for those defending against fraud claims wherein the claimant either knew that the alleged misrepresentations were false or it should have been obvious to the claimant that the alleged misrepresentations were false.

_____________________

David Greene is a partner in the Litigation Department of Fox Rothschild LLP. David represents clients in a variety of commercial litigation matters in State and Federal Courts throughout Florida. You can reach David at (561) 804-4441 or dgreene@foxrothschild.com.

Photo of David Greene  David Greene 

David Greene is a commercial litigation partner in Fox Rothschild’s West Palm Beach office. His practice focuses primarily on banking litigation, real estate litigation, title insurance litigation, and construction litigation. You can reach David at 561-804-4441 or dgreene@foxrothschild.com.

Read more about David Greene EmailDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    South Florida Trial Practice
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo