Fraud in the Inducement

To prevail on a claim for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) that the person making the statement knew it was false; (3) that the person making the statement intended to induce reliance; (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on that false statement; and (5) damages as result. See Prieto v. Smook, 97 So.3d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Generally, for a false statement to be grounds for fraud, it must be about a past or existing fact and not a promise to do something in the future. See Wadington v. Continental Medical Services, Inc., 907 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The only exception to that general rule is if a promise to perform is made without any intention of performing it. Id. Furthermore, the defendant needs to have actual knowledge that what he said during the sales communication was not true or that he had an intent to deceive. See MDVIP, Inc. v. Beber, 222 So.3d 555, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Mere puffery is not actionable. Id. at 561. It is up to the consumer to investigate the truth of any puffery statement. Id. Also, a plaintiff cannot recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that are covered or contradicted in a later written contract. Yatak v. La Placita Grocery of Fort Pierce Corp., 338 So.3d 497, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).

Additionally, damages in a fraud in the inducement claim are often quasi-contractual damages for which a plaintiff has also filed a breach of contract. See Ramon International Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Chaucer Syndicates Limited, 2025 WL 2233036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) which stated that “(a) plaintiff, however, may not recover damages for fraud that duplicate damages awarded for breach of contract.” A plaintiff may not obtain damages from breach of contract and fraud in the inducement when both are based upon the same underlying facts.