Thursday, September 3, 2009

Second District On The Economic Loss Rule and Waiver Of Right To Jury Trial

In Ladner v. AmSouth Bank (2D08-3540), the Second District reached a number of conclusions in a dispute relating to a mortgage. 

First, the trial court's decision relating to the sufficiency of the pleading was reversed. 

Second, the trial court's conclusion relating to the economic loss rule was reversed.  The court stated: "We do note though that the economic loss rule would not act as a bar to the Ladners' tort claims against AmSouth that stem from the Ladners' reliance on AmSouth's representations when entering into the construction contract with Water Color. " '[W]hen . . . fraud occurs in . . . connection with misrepresentations, statements, or omissions which cause the complaining party to enter into a transaction, then such fraud is fraud in the inducement and survives as an independent tort.' " Output, Inc. v. Danka Bus. Sys., Inc., 991 So. 2d 941, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting D and M Jupiter, Inc. v. Friedopfer, 853 So. 2d 485, 487-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). " 'The economic loss rule has not eliminated causes of action based upon torts independent of the contractual breach. . . .' " Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2d 532, 537 (Fla. 2004) (quoting HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 1996)). Accordingly, we also reverse the trial court's finding based on the economic loss rule as it applies to the Water Color contract.

Third, the Second District affirmed the trial court's application of the jury waiver clause in the mortgage agreement.


Post a Comment