Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Const. Co., Inc., 90-1493
| Decision Date | 12 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1493,90-1493 |
| Citation | 604 So.2d 17 |
| Parties | Harvey JACOBSON and Barbara Jacobson, his wife, Appellants, v. HERITAGE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Appellees. 604 So.2d 17, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1878 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven B. Greenfield, Boca Raton, for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.
Harvey and Barbara Jacobson appeal the trial court's order granting Deni Associates of Florida, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Jacobsons' complaint with prejudice. We reverse and remand.
The Jacobsons contracted with Heritage Quality Construction Company to purchase a parcel of real property and a house to be built on the property. Heritage allegedly hired Deni as a subcontractor to survey the real estate, prepare a sketch of the survey and lay out the house on the property. The Jacobsons filed a complaint against Deni for its failure to properly do its job.
Deni filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted without comment. The motion alleged several grounds for dismissal. However, failure to state a cause of action was the only valid ground here.
The Jacobsons' complaint did fail to state a cause of action in tort, since the only tort which Deni allegedly committed was the negligent breach of its contract. The Florida Supreme Court has held that even where a defendant "flagrantly, unjustifiably, and oppressively breaches a contract," the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant in tort unless the tort is distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract. AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 515 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla.1987).
The Jacobsons' complaint also failed to allege sufficient facts to support a cause of action in contract. The Jacobsons correctly argue on appeal that an intended third party beneficiary of a contract may recover damages from the contracting parties if they breach the contract. See Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 250 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.1971); Weimar v. Yacht Club Point Estates, Inc., 223 So.2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). However, the complaint failed to allege that Heritage and Deni intended that the Jacobsons benefit from their contract. Nor did the complaint allege facts concerning the contract which could indicate that Heritage and Deni intended for the Jacobsons to benefit from their contract.
Nevertheless, the trial court should not have dismissed the Jacobsons' complaint with prejudice. Rather, it should have given the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc.
...obligations does not give rise to an independent action in tort upon which Lennar may bring suit. See Weimar; Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Const., 604 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1993); McElvy, Jennewein, et al. v. Arlington Elec., 582 So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA......
-
Florida Mun. Power v. Florida Power and Light
...is not a party to the contract is an intended third party beneficiary of the contract." Id. at 1031 (citing Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Constr. Co., 604 So.2d 17 (4th DCA 1992), dismissed, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1993)). "A party is an intended beneficiary only if the parties to the contract clea......
-
Biscayne Investment Group, Ltd. v. Guarantee Management Services, Inc., Case No. 3D04-1354 (FL 4/6/2005)
...resulting from the breach. Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Constr. Co., 604 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review dismissed, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1993). A non-party is the specifically intended beneficiary only if the contra......
-
Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Halliday
...is an exception when the non-party is specifically the intended third party beneficiary of the contract. Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Constr. Co., 604 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), rev. dismissed, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1993). A non-party is the specifically intended beneficiary only if the contr......
-
Contract cases
...645 So.2d 28, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). CONTRACT CASES §3:40 Florida Causes of Action 3-20 9. Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Const. Co., Inc., 604 So.2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), cause dismissed , 613 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1993). 10. Aetna Casualty & Surety, Co. v. Jelac Corp., 505 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla.......