Specialty Marine & Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Venus
66 So. 3d 306
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Venus owned property in Mayport, Florida, and a boundary dispute arose with a neighbor over a 176 x 18 foot area.
- Specialty Marine sought to purchase, was misled by Venus about the boundary, and was told the area was 18 feet deeper than it actually was.
- Tri-State Land Surveyors conducted a boundary survey at the urging of Specialty Marine’s lender; the survey allegedly corroborated Venus’s representations.
- Specialty Marine bought the property for $450,000 and later learned the boundary was six inches from the northerly side, making it unsuitable for its use.
- Specialty Marine sued, asserting negligent misrepresentation against Venus and trusts, and negligence/breach claims against Tri-State; Tri-State settled before trial; the jury awarded Specialty Marine $400,000 in total damages with Venus liable for 90%.
- The trial court granted JNOV in favor of Venus, concluding Specialty Marine failed to prove justifiable reliance and causation; the court also denied prejudgment interest on a partial award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Specialty Marine justified reliance on Venus’ misrepresentation | Specialty Marine showed Venus’ misrepresentations and that reliance caused the purchase | Reliance barred because Tri-State survey independently determined boundaries | Yes; reliance supported; JNOV reversed; verdict reinstated |
| Whether the jury’s causation/reliance finding was supported by competent substantial evidence | Evidence showed Venus’ misrepresentations plus faulty survey caused damages | Survey issue and failure to investigate negate justifiable reliance | Yes; jury’s mixed causation finding upheld; JNOV improper |
| Whether prejudgment interest is available on the reinstated verdict | Because loss was pecuniary and fixed in time, prejudgment interest should apply | Traditionally not awarded in tort until final judgment | Prejudgment interest awarded on the reinstated $360,000 verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla. 1980) (distinguishes fraudulent misrepresentation from negligent misrepresentation; reliance element differs)
- Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1997) (justifiable reliance in negligent misrepresentation; investigation duty scope)
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So.3d 102 (Fla.2010) (sets elements for fraudulent misrepresentation and contrasts with negligent misrepresentation)
- Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985) (non-disclosure; elements of misrepresentation; reliance distinctions)
- Newbern v. Mansbach, 777 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reliance considered under totality of circumstances; independent investigation not fatal to justifiable reliance)
- Stev-Mar, Inc. v. Matvejs, 678 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (investigation by buyer does not bar negligent misrepresentation liability when reliance is justified)
- Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 46 So.3d 42 (Fla.2010) (prejudgment interest in pecuniary tort losses when fixed in time)