- 12 -
Pursuant to Florida jurisprudence, a claim for common-law
fraud requires the following elements: (1) A false statement
concerning a material fact; (2) the representor's knowledge that
the representation is false; (3) an intention that the
representation induce another to act on it; and (4) consequent
injury to the party acting in reliance on the representation.
Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat, 246 F.Supp. 780 (S.D. Fla. 1965),
revd. on other grounds 386 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1967); Food Fair,
Inc. v. Anderson, 382 So. 2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980).
Petitioners suggest that the nature of the injury necessary
to sustain a claim for fraud under Florida law is inherently
personal, noting the availability of remedies for emotional
distress and similar personal injuries resulting from the fraud
perpetrated. Petitioners concede on brief, however, that there
is nothing in the record to demonstrate that compensatory damages
were paid to petitioner on account of emotional stress or “other
damages that are classic personal injury damages”. Because our
focus is on the injuries that actually affected petitioner’s
receipt of compensatory damages rather than on other possible
injuries, see Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995),
petitioners’ argument is unavailing.
Florida law does not appear to rigidly categorize the nature
of the injury necessary to sustain a claim for fraud.4 We note,
4 As stated in Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson, 382 So. 2d 150,
154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980):
Florida decisions defining injury go in both directions
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011