Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0670 Lower Tribunal No. 19-14281-CA-01 ________________
Boca Aircraft Maintenance, LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Fifteen Group Capital, LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, for appellants.
Rosenthal Law Group and Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem Jones (Weston), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
LOBREE, J. Boca Aircraft Maintenance, LLC (“BAM”), Todd Wilkins, and David
Hintzke appeal an order granting leave to amend to assert a claim for
punitive damages, a final judgment, and an amended final judgment entered
in favor of Fifteen Group Capital, LLC (“Fifteen”). We reverse as we
conclude that Fifteen is precluded from seeking tort and punitive damages
based on the independent tort rule.
BACKGROUND
In July 2018, Fifteen’s leased Dassault Falcon 50 aircraft (“the
Aircraft”) was due for inspection and maintenance. Fifteen hired Corporate
Air Charters (“CAC”) to manage the Aircraft, and Bill Detig, the maintenance
director of CAC, was tasked with vetting the qualifications of aircraft repair
stations to perform the required maintenance. Detig only considered Part
145 certified aircraft repair stations, and BAM was one of several stations
Detig vetted to perform the maintenance.
Eventually, Detig met with Wilkins, BAM’s president and sole owner,
and Hintzke, BAM’s director of technical services, at BAM’s facility in Boca
Raton in July 2018. Detig, Wilkins, and Hintzke discussed the maintenance
that would be provided, and which workers would work on the Aircraft. At
the conclusion of the meeting Detig felt that he could recommend BAM to
complete the work on the Aircraft. Fifteen and BAM later entered a contract
2 for the required maintenance.
BAM assigned Jay Wald as the lead technician in connection with the
performance of the maintenance. Wald did not have any experience with
the exact Falcon 50 type of the Aircraft. Several other mechanics worked on
the Aircraft, some of whom did not have experience working on Falcon 50
aircraft. After the required maintenance was completed, the Aircraft was
returned to Fifteen.
On February 8, 2019, the Aircraft was flown from Oakland Airport to
Los Angeles when an incident occurred. After the Aircraft had touched down,
its pilot, Captain Melton, went to retract the flaps when a flap symmetry light
illuminated on the warning system and prevented any further movement of
the flaps. Melton exited the Aircraft and noticed that the Aircraft’s flaps were
not fully retracted and the lefthand flap was disengaged and disfigured.
Melton’s uncontroverted testimony was that the existence of this asymmetry-
disengagement of the flaps while the Aircraft is in flight could have resulted
in a catastrophic incident. It is undisputed that one of BAM’s mechanics,
Mason Junco, failed to properly reinstall the flap when the Aircraft was
undergoing maintenance. The Aircraft was inspected and repaired at Los
Angeles by Dassault, the aircraft manufacturer, and was later relocated to
West Star Aviation in Tennessee for reinspection. West Star concluded the
3 Aircraft had many significant equipment and maintenance deficiencies.
Fifteen then filed suit against BAM, Wilkins, and Hintzke on May 9,
2019. Under the operative second amended complaint, Fifteen sought
damages for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of oral
contract; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7)
gross negligence seeking punitive damages; and (8) fraud seeking punitive
damages. Under each claim Fifteen sought damages for the monies paid to
BAM for services it did not properly perform and the cost of repair, diminution
of value, and loss of use of the Aircraft.
The matter proceeded to an eight-day bench trial on December 11,
2023, where Detig, Wilkins, and Hintzke all testified. On March 14, 2024,
the trial court entered a sixty-page final judgment for Fifteen, concluding, in
relevant part: (1) that Wilkins and Hintzke made fraudulent
misrepresentations to Detig that induced him to recommend that Fifteen
contract with BAM to perform the maintenance; (2) BAM was negligent by
failing to meet FAA safety regulations while performing the maintenance; (3)
Fifteen was entitled to punitive damages for BAM’s gross negligence in
failing to properly document the maintenance, inspect, and install the flaps
on the Aircraft as its chief inspector tested positive for drugs while performing
the inspection and no reinspection was performed; (4) Fifteen was entitled
4 to punitive damages for BAM’s intentional misconduct as Wilkins and Hintzke
misrepresented to Detig that Falcon 50 trained mechanics would work on the
Aircraft in Opa-Locka to induce Detig to recommend Fifteen enter a contract
with BAM when in reality BAM had never performed this type of maintenance
in Opa-Locka and none of the technicians in Opa-Locka had Falcon 50
experience; and (5) BAM breached the oral contract between itself and
Fifteen by failing to properly perform the service stated in the work order.
The trial court allocated specific damages for each claim and awarded
Fifteen $180,810.89 in breach of contract damages, $92,200.96 in tort
damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The award for the breach
of contract damages included the payment to Dassault for repairs after the
flap incident, the payment to West Star Aviation for inspection and additional
repairs, and prejudgment interest. The award for tort damages (specifically
for negligence, gross negligence, and fraud)1 included the payment to move
the Aircraft to West Star Aviation after the flap incident, payment for loss of
use and storage of the Aircraft while it was being repaired and inspected
post-flap incident, and prejudgment interest.2 This appeal followed.
1 As no damages were awarded for Fifteen’s negligence per se claim, we decline to address it on appeal. 2 The trial court then entered an amended final judgment correcting a scriveners’ error.
5 STANDARD OF REVIEW
“When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact
are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings
will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are
clearly erroneous.” Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 338 So. 3d 971, 973–74 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2022) (quoting Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So.
2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). “[M]ixed questions of law and fact . . .
require us to employ a mixed standard of review: we defer to the trial court’s
factual findings (to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial
evidence), but we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Ezer v.
Holdack, 358 So. 3d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Batur v.
Signature Props. of N.W. Fla., Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA
2005)).
ANALYSIS
“It 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0670 Lower Tribunal No. 19-14281-CA-01 ________________
Boca Aircraft Maintenance, LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Fifteen Group Capital, LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, for appellants.
Rosenthal Law Group and Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem Jones (Weston), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
LOBREE, J. Boca Aircraft Maintenance, LLC (“BAM”), Todd Wilkins, and David
Hintzke appeal an order granting leave to amend to assert a claim for
punitive damages, a final judgment, and an amended final judgment entered
in favor of Fifteen Group Capital, LLC (“Fifteen”). We reverse as we
conclude that Fifteen is precluded from seeking tort and punitive damages
based on the independent tort rule.
BACKGROUND
In July 2018, Fifteen’s leased Dassault Falcon 50 aircraft (“the
Aircraft”) was due for inspection and maintenance. Fifteen hired Corporate
Air Charters (“CAC”) to manage the Aircraft, and Bill Detig, the maintenance
director of CAC, was tasked with vetting the qualifications of aircraft repair
stations to perform the required maintenance. Detig only considered Part
145 certified aircraft repair stations, and BAM was one of several stations
Detig vetted to perform the maintenance.
Eventually, Detig met with Wilkins, BAM’s president and sole owner,
and Hintzke, BAM’s director of technical services, at BAM’s facility in Boca
Raton in July 2018. Detig, Wilkins, and Hintzke discussed the maintenance
that would be provided, and which workers would work on the Aircraft. At
the conclusion of the meeting Detig felt that he could recommend BAM to
complete the work on the Aircraft. Fifteen and BAM later entered a contract
2 for the required maintenance.
BAM assigned Jay Wald as the lead technician in connection with the
performance of the maintenance. Wald did not have any experience with
the exact Falcon 50 type of the Aircraft. Several other mechanics worked on
the Aircraft, some of whom did not have experience working on Falcon 50
aircraft. After the required maintenance was completed, the Aircraft was
returned to Fifteen.
On February 8, 2019, the Aircraft was flown from Oakland Airport to
Los Angeles when an incident occurred. After the Aircraft had touched down,
its pilot, Captain Melton, went to retract the flaps when a flap symmetry light
illuminated on the warning system and prevented any further movement of
the flaps. Melton exited the Aircraft and noticed that the Aircraft’s flaps were
not fully retracted and the lefthand flap was disengaged and disfigured.
Melton’s uncontroverted testimony was that the existence of this asymmetry-
disengagement of the flaps while the Aircraft is in flight could have resulted
in a catastrophic incident. It is undisputed that one of BAM’s mechanics,
Mason Junco, failed to properly reinstall the flap when the Aircraft was
undergoing maintenance. The Aircraft was inspected and repaired at Los
Angeles by Dassault, the aircraft manufacturer, and was later relocated to
West Star Aviation in Tennessee for reinspection. West Star concluded the
3 Aircraft had many significant equipment and maintenance deficiencies.
Fifteen then filed suit against BAM, Wilkins, and Hintzke on May 9,
2019. Under the operative second amended complaint, Fifteen sought
damages for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of oral
contract; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7)
gross negligence seeking punitive damages; and (8) fraud seeking punitive
damages. Under each claim Fifteen sought damages for the monies paid to
BAM for services it did not properly perform and the cost of repair, diminution
of value, and loss of use of the Aircraft.
The matter proceeded to an eight-day bench trial on December 11,
2023, where Detig, Wilkins, and Hintzke all testified. On March 14, 2024,
the trial court entered a sixty-page final judgment for Fifteen, concluding, in
relevant part: (1) that Wilkins and Hintzke made fraudulent
misrepresentations to Detig that induced him to recommend that Fifteen
contract with BAM to perform the maintenance; (2) BAM was negligent by
failing to meet FAA safety regulations while performing the maintenance; (3)
Fifteen was entitled to punitive damages for BAM’s gross negligence in
failing to properly document the maintenance, inspect, and install the flaps
on the Aircraft as its chief inspector tested positive for drugs while performing
the inspection and no reinspection was performed; (4) Fifteen was entitled
4 to punitive damages for BAM’s intentional misconduct as Wilkins and Hintzke
misrepresented to Detig that Falcon 50 trained mechanics would work on the
Aircraft in Opa-Locka to induce Detig to recommend Fifteen enter a contract
with BAM when in reality BAM had never performed this type of maintenance
in Opa-Locka and none of the technicians in Opa-Locka had Falcon 50
experience; and (5) BAM breached the oral contract between itself and
Fifteen by failing to properly perform the service stated in the work order.
The trial court allocated specific damages for each claim and awarded
Fifteen $180,810.89 in breach of contract damages, $92,200.96 in tort
damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The award for the breach
of contract damages included the payment to Dassault for repairs after the
flap incident, the payment to West Star Aviation for inspection and additional
repairs, and prejudgment interest. The award for tort damages (specifically
for negligence, gross negligence, and fraud)1 included the payment to move
the Aircraft to West Star Aviation after the flap incident, payment for loss of
use and storage of the Aircraft while it was being repaired and inspected
post-flap incident, and prejudgment interest.2 This appeal followed.
1 As no damages were awarded for Fifteen’s negligence per se claim, we decline to address it on appeal. 2 The trial court then entered an amended final judgment correcting a scriveners’ error.
5 STANDARD OF REVIEW
“When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact
are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings
will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are
clearly erroneous.” Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 338 So. 3d 971, 973–74 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2022) (quoting Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So.
2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). “[M]ixed questions of law and fact . . .
require us to employ a mixed standard of review: we defer to the trial court’s
factual findings (to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial
evidence), but we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Ezer v.
Holdack, 358 So. 3d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Batur v.
Signature Props. of N.W. Fla., Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA
2005)).
ANALYSIS
“It 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.” Island Travel & Tours, Ltd., Co. v. MYR Indep.,
Inc., 300 So. 3d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also Ginsberg v. Lennar
Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“It is well
established that breach of contractual terms may not form the basis for a
6 claim in tort. Where damages sought in tort are the same as those for breach
of contract a plaintiff may not circumvent the contractual relationship by
bringing an action in tort.”). “It is well settled in Florida that . . . . for an alleged
misrepresentation regarding a contract to be actionable, the damages
stemming from that misrepresentation must be independent, separate and
distinct from the damages sustained from the contract’s breach.” Peebles v.
Puig, 223 So. 3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citation omitted).
Additionally, “[p]unitive damages are generally not recoverable for a breach
of contract unless it is accompanied by a separate and independent tort
claim.” Ghodrati v. Miami Paneling Corp., 770 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA
2000).
Here, we conclude that Fifteen had no right to recover tort or punitive
damages because the fraud and negligence claims were not independent of
the breach of contract claims and Fifteen sought identical damages for all
claims. In its tort claims, Fifteen asserted that Wilkins and Hintzke made
fraudulent representations, of which BAM was aware, to Detig that: (1) BAM
employed mechanics with extensive experience, “specifically with the
Dassault Breguet Falcon 50,” who were experienced to perform the
maintenance; (2) these “Falcon 50” mechanics were all located in BAM’s
service station in Boca Raton but would be relocated to its Opa-Locka
7 service station to perform the maintenance; (3) these experienced “Falcon
50” mechanics would be the specific mechanics who performed and
supervised the entire scope of the maintenance on the Aircraft. Fifteen
contended these fraudulent misrepresentations induced Fifteen to enter the
contract with BAM and BAM negligently failed to repair the Aircraft. Fifteen,
however, fails to demonstrate what separate and distinct damages
specifically arose from the alleged misrepresentation that only Falcon-50
trained mechanics would perform maintenance on the Aircraft.
Under Florida law “[a] plaintiff . . . may not recover damages for fraud
that duplicate damages awarded for breach of contract.” Ghodrati, 770 So.
2d at 183. The only damages awarded by the trial court for the tort claims
were the payment to move the Aircraft to West Star Aviation, payment for
loss of use and storage of the Aircraft, and prejudgment interest. There is
nothing in the record demonstrating how those damages arose separately
and distinctly from the damages awarded for the breach of contract claim—
i.e., the payment to Dassault for repairs after the flap incident and the
payment to West Star Aviation for inspection and additional repairs. All these
damages arose from the same incident. The final judgment simply arbitrarily
assigned some damages to the tort claims and the remainder to the breach
of contract claims, without discussion of how each damage award arose from
8 the allegedly independent claims.
There is nothing in the record showing that Fifteen suffered any distinct
damages separate and apart from those it suffered as a result of BAM’s
insufficient performance of the contract and the cost of remediating that work.
All the injuries Fifteen suffered arose because BAM failed to perform the
contract. “Under such circumstances, Florida does not allow a party
damaged by a breach of contract to recover the exact same contract
damages via a fraud claim.” Peebles, 223 So. 3d at 1069; see also Richard
Swaebe, Inc. v. Sears World Trade, Inc., 639 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1994) (“[W]ithout proving a separate and independent tort, even
flagrant and oppressive breach of contract could not be converted into tort in
order to recover punitive damages.” (citing Lewis v. Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222
(Fla. 1982))). As Fifteen’s damages resulted from BAM’s breach of contract
and not any independent, separate, or distinct fraudulent misrepresentations
by BAM, Wilkins, or Hintzke, we reverse the final judgment in part, vacate
the punitive damages awarded, and remand with instructions for the trial
court to determine whether any compensatory damages initially awarded
under the tort claims should be allocated as breach of contract damages.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.