Navigating Florida’s Independent Tort Doctrine

By: Maury Litow, Esq.

When a dispute arises that results in the filing of a lawsuit, it is common for plaintiffs—the parties who file the lawsuit—to bring multiple causes of action. In a business dispute, a plaintiff may wish to bring a breach of contract claim as well as a tort claim such as fraud or negligence. A tort is a civil wrong that occurs when a person’s act or omission causes injury or harm to another resulting in legal liability to the person responsible. However, in Florida, the independent tort doctrine could potentially bar any tort claim that is based on the same acts as the breach of contract claim.

The Independent Tort Doctrine’s Predecessor: The Economic Loss Rule

Historically, courts in Florida have addressed tort claims in business disputes based on the economic loss rule. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff could not recover in a tort action if the damages sought are solely economic damages. Although the economic loss rule originated in the products liability context, courts soon expanded the economic loss rule to apply to cases where the parties were in contractual privity.

The Florida Supreme Court’s Opinion in Tiara Condo. Ass’n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos.

In 2013, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tiara Condo. Ass’n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos. In Tiara, the Florida Supreme Court addressed a question of Florida law certified to it by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Florida Supreme Court restated as: Does the economic loss rule bar an insured's suit against an insurance broker where the parties are in contractual privity with one another and the damages sought are solely for economic losses? The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the negative and held that the application of the economic loss rule is limited to products liability cases. However, Justice Pariente clarified in a concurring opinion that Tiara’s limiting of the economic loss rule to products liability cases does not undermine Florida contract law and explained that “in order to bring a valid tort claim, a party still must demonstrate that all of the required elements for the cause of action are satisfied, including that the tort is independent of any breach of contract claim.”

Modern Application of the Independent Tort Doctrine

Following Tiara, there was some initial confusion among the courts as to whether a plaintiff was required to plead the existence of an independent tort in order to bring a tort action in a contractual dispute. However, Florida courts have since recognized that the independent tort doctrine, the requirement for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a tort is independent of any breach of contract claim, survives Tiara, as Justice Pariente explained in her concurrence. In other words, a plaintiff must show that an independent alleged harm occurred due to the breach of a duty that the defendant assumed other than a breach of contractual terms.

For example, in Peebles v. Puig, the Third District Court of Appeal, explicitly applying contract law principles rather than the economic loss rule, reversed a final judgment for the plaintiff on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim on the grounds that there was no tort independent from the defendant’s breach of contract. Later, in Island Travel & Tours, Ltd., Co. v. MYR Indep., Inc., the Third District Court of Appeal once again affirmed the independent tort doctrine as a still-valid principle of contract law, explaining that “[i]t is a fundamental, long-standing common law principle that a plaintiff may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” Other Florida District Courts of Appeal have also recognized and applied the independent tort doctrine. Federal courts, too, have recognized and applied Florida’s independent tort doctrine.

Conclusion

When addressing tort claims in business disputes, Florida courts will look to the independent tort doctrine to determine whether those tort claims should survive dismissal. If a tort claim does not allege conduct that is independent of a breach of contract, a Florida court may dismiss that claim.

Plaintiffs should be aware of the independent tort doctrine and determine before bringing a tort claim whether the alleged tortious conduct can be distinguished from breaches of contractual obligations.

Defendants should carefully review any tort claims brought in a business dispute and move to dismiss such claims if the defendant determines that the tortious conduct alleged by the plaintiff is really an alleged breach of contractual obligations.

If you have any questions about bringing or defending against tort claims in Florida in a business dispute or similar matter, please contact us at (954) 462-1431 to speak to a RMZ Law attorney.