185 So. 3d 566
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Prewitt (Appellant) agreed to join Tommy Constantine Racing after Constantine (Appellee) told him he already had funding and did not need Prewitt’s money; the parties then executed a written agreement requiring Prewitt to pay nearly $1 million in installments.
- The written agreement stated the payments "shall [be] use[d] . . . to provide" racing programs and contemplated a later "Definitive Agreement;" it lacked an integration clause.
- Before the first race, Constantine informed Prewitt the team would not race due to vehicle problems; Prewitt later learned Constantine lacked funds to pay for car components and terminated the agreement.
- Prewitt sued for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement; the jury found for Prewitt on both claims and awarded damages.
- The trial court granted Constantine’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the fraud count (finding the tort merged with the contract), but denied Constantine’s motions for a new trial and to allow out-of-state attorney Dennis Wilenchik to appear pro hac vice; parties appealed and cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prewitt) | Defendant's Argument (Constantine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fraudulent-inducement verdict survives or merges into the breach-of-contract claim (JNOV) | Constantine made knowingly false statements about present funding; those were representations of present fact inducing the contract, so fraud is independent of contract | Statements were part of the contracting context and thus the tort merges with the contract (economic-loss/common-law rule); fraud claim should not survive separate from breach | Reversed JNOV. Court held statements were about present circumstances (funding) — fraud in the inducement — so claim is independent; remanded to reinstate jury verdict for fraud |
| Whether denial of pro hac vice and related denial of a new trial for counsel error was an abuse of discretion | (On cross-appeal) Denial of Wilenchik pro hac vice prejudiced Constantine because his trial counsel allegedly made blunders, warranting new trial | Trial court reasonably found Wilenchik’s application and attachments suggested a risk of disrupting administration of justice; denial was within discretion | Affirmed. Court found no abuse of discretion in denying pro hac vice and no basis to order a new trial on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiara Condominium Ass’n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013) (limits economic loss rule to product liability; notes tort must be independent of contract under common law)
- Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (distinguishes present-fact misrepresentations from future promises that merge with contract)
- La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. v. Moran, 704 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (present-fact misrepresentations can constitute fraud in inducement)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Brooks v. AMP Servs. Ltd., 979 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (pro hac vice may be denied when admission would adversely affect administration of justice)