Baker v. American General Life & Accident Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baker v. American General Life & Accident Insurance Co.

686 So. 2d 731, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1997 WL 7576

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1997

DocketNo. 96-401

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 731 (Baker v. American General Life & Accident Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. American General Life & Accident Insurance Co., 686 So. 2d 731, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1997 WL 7576 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge a final order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice. The order of dismissal was based solely on application of the economic loss rule. Appellants claim (1) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for fraud in the inducement on the grounds that the claim is preempted 'by the economic loss rule, (2) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule, and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for negligence on the grounds that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. At oral argument, appellants conceded as to issue three. We find that issues one and two are governed by the supreme court’s recent decision in HTP Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarrincenses S.A, 685 So.2d 1238 (Fla.1996), and reverse as to these issues.

Appellees request us to uphold the dismissal based on arguments not addressed by the trial court. We decline to do so. Wassall v. W.H. Payne, 682 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

The order of dismissal is reversed.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge a final order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice. The order of dismissal was based solely on application of the economic loss rule. Appellants claim (1) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for fraud in the inducement on the grounds that the claim is preempted 'by the economic loss rule, (2) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule, and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for negligence on the grounds that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. At oral argument, appellants conceded as to issue three. We find that issues one and two are governed by the supreme court’s recent decision in HTP Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarrincenses S.A, 685 So.2d 1238 (Fla.1996), and reverse as to these issues.

Appellees request us to uphold the dismissal based on arguments not addressed by the trial court. We decline to do so. Wassall v. W.H. Payne, 682 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

The order of dismissal is reversed.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 731, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 58, 1997 WL 7576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-american-general-life-accident-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack