BEACON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT v. PNR, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 November 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 4D99-627.,4D99-627. |
Citation | 890 So.2d 274 |
Parties | BEACON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., and Ernest W. Willis, Appellants, v. PNR, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Goodfellas Restaurant, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Maher, Lance A. Harke and Harry J. Ross of the Law Office of Harry J. Ross, Boca Raton, and Harke & Clasby, LLP., Miami, for appellants.
C. Vincent LoCurto of Brown, LoCurto, & Robert, LLP., Fort Lauderdale, and Brian F. Labovick, of Labovick, Labovick, and Wald, P.A., Jupiter, for appellee.
This case recurs on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. In accord with the Supreme Court's Mandate, we reconsider PNR's claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) in light of the supreme court's holding that the statute "applies to private causes of action arising from single unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce, even if it involves only a single party, a single transaction, or a single practice." See PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgt., Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla.2003)
.
We begin with the facts stated by the supreme court as follows.
After remand, we granted oral argument to consider PNR's claim that the landlord's conduct in "intentionally neglecting" the premises and in failing to make necessary repairs "causing it to violate nearly every basic building code provision" amounted to an unfair and deceptive trade act or practice under FDUTPA. We also necessarily consider defendants' contrary argument that PNR is not entitled to relief under FDUTPA as a matter of law because PNR's claim does not involve a "consumer transaction." We have carefully examined the evidence regarding the deceptive and unfair trade practices acts.
In its review, the supreme court limited itself to the issue whether FDUTPA applies to a single act of deception. Its conclusion was, as we have just indicated, that it does. We now proceed with that understanding and turn to the questions described. The argument that FDUTPA applies only to a consumer transaction, if valid, implicates an asserted threshold for relief under the statute, and so we begin with it. As originally drafted, FDUTPA outlawed "[u]nfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce...." § 501.202, Fla. Stat. (1973). Although the general proscription of FDUTPA just quoted did not contain any indication that it was intended to be limited to a consumer transaction, the legislature included a definitional provision saying that:
"(1) `Consumer transaction' means a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other disposition of an item of goods, a consumer service, or an intangible to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household or that relate to a business opportunity that requires both his expenditure of money or property and his personal services on a continuing basis and in which he has not been previously engaged, or a solicitation by a supplier with respect to any of these dispositions."
§ 501.203(1), Fla. Stat. (1973). Then in 1979, the legislature added a definition of "consumer" saying:
"`Consumer' means an individual; child, by and through its parent or legal guardian; firm; association; joint adventure; partnership; estate; trust; business trust; syndicate; fiduciary; corporation; or any other group or combination."
We note that the definition of consumer includes several business entities, which would seem to extend its meaning beyond the traditional understanding of a consumer transaction as embracing the dealings of individuals and their families in matters affecting their personal or household use. If corporations, firms, joint ventures and business trusts are consumers for purposes of FDUTPA, it would also seem at first blush that they are equally entitled to its protections in business dealings, at least when they are themselves acting as consumers. On the other hand, it seems unnecessary to have any definition of consumer transaction if the act was not limited to personal or household dealings. And so, while the plain language of the statute did not appear to require that unfair or deceptive acts necessarily involve a "consumer transaction," that was the understanding reached in several federal cases.2 See Monsanto Co. v. Campuzano, 206 F.Supp.2d. 1252, 1269 (S.D.Fla.2002)
( ); Big Tomato v. Tasty Concepts Inc., 972 F.Supp. 662, 663 (S.D.Fla.1997) ( ); Bryant Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. Inc. v. Carrier Corp., 597 F.Supp. 1045, 1053 (S.D.Fla.1984) ( ); LJS Co. v. Marks, 480 F.Supp. 241, 244 (S.D.Fla.1979) ( ).
In 1993, the legislature made some significant changes to FDUTPA. For one, it deleted FDUTPA's definitions of consumer transaction and supplier. See Ch. 93-38, § 2, Laws of Fla. At the same time, the legislature expanded the definition of consumer to add several business entities, including a catch-all "any commercial entity". Id. These changes coincided with an amendment to the statute adding the words "unconscionable acts or practices" to the general proscription. Ch. 93-38, § 3, Laws of Fla.
The logical implication by these definitional deletions is that they were intended to further a purpose of making the state statute at once different by offering some state law protection to purely commercial entities, yet consistent with its federal counterpart in its well established protection of personal, individual household dealings. We therefore conclude that the 1993 amendments to FDUTPA made clear that the statute is not limited to purely consumer transactions. It is now intended by its plain text to apply to any act or practice occurring "in the conduct of any trade or commerce" [e.s.] even as between purely commercial interests. § 501.204, Fla. Stat. (1993).
In this action, PNR used FDUTPA to sue defendants Beacon and Willis for damages. At least two state court decisions — rare events in FDUTPA litigation — have held that business entities may not use FDUTPA for damages actions unless they involve transactions in which the business entity was itself acting as a consumer. See N.G.L. Travel Assoc. v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., 764 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
; and Warren Tech., Inc. v. Hines Interests Ltd. P'ship, 733 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also § 501.211(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W. Boca Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
...Instead, it applies to "any act or practice occurring ‘in the conduct of any...commerce.’ " Beacon Property Mgt., Inc. v. PNR, Inc ., 890 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (citation omitted). A plaintiff need not be party to any consumer transaction to bring a FDUTPA claim. See, e.g......
-
Williams v. Edelman
...Appeals recently affirmed the jury verdict in a FDUTPA claim concerning a real estate transaction. See Beacon Property Management, Inc. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Without citing to any authority, Defendants contend that the statutory amendments were not meant to expand......
-
Kelly v. PALMER, REIFLER, & ASSOCIATES, PA
...majority of cases analyzing FDUTPA are federal cases. See Kertesz, 635 F.Supp.2d at 1350 n. 3 (citing Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (state court decisions are "rare events" in FDUTPA 9 We respectfully disagree with the reasoning of our sister ......
-
Furmanite America, Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc.
...of consuming goods or services. At least, nothing in section 501.211(2) purports to state otherwise." Beacon Prop. Mgt., Inc. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (emphasis in After the amendments to the FDUTPA, courts have opined on several occasions that actions under the ......
-
Suing Consumer Bureaus: Business Does Not Have To Be Consumer To Sue Under Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act
...consumer status for a claimant bringing a FDUTPA action based on the Fourth District's opinion in Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So. 2d 274, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA Fortunately, the Fourth District has added some clarity to the issue. In the second portion of the Court's opinion in Ca......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...Grain Co. v. Pullman Standard, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 628, 632-34 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (Illinois); Beacon Property Mgmt. v. PNR, Inc., 890 So. 2d 274, 277-79 (Fla. App. 2004) (Florida). 231. Galerie Furstenberg v. Coffaro, 697 F. Supp. 1282, 1292 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (granting limited rights to competit......
-
Business litigation
...Stat. §501.211(1) (“anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part may bring an action); Beacon Property Management, Inc. v. PNR, Inc. , 890 So. 2d 274, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (noting that it appears that FDUTPA claims could be asserted by businesses outside of a consumer protection context)......
-
The florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act and other florida consumer protection laws
...a plaintiff need prove only a single act of deception or other conduct that violates the Act. [ Beacon Property Management, Inc. v. PNR , 890 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).] Examples of successful efforts to bring DUPTA claims include: • A “Ponzi-type scheme to inflate bills—[ see Tem......