Case ID: so2d_641/html/0145-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GRIFFIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donald E. LEE, Appellant, v. Wesley C. PAXSON, Sr., and Paxson Electric Company, Appellees.
    No. 94-162.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    July 22, 1994.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1994.
    Kenneth Friedland of Holland, Starling, Severs, Stadler & Friedland, P.A., Titusville, for appellant.
    John W. Caven, Jr., and Charles B. Bennett, Jr., of Caven, Clark, Ray & Tucker, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially and dissents, with opinion.

GRIFFIN, Judge,

concurring in part; dissenting in part.

I concur in the affirmance of dismissal of count III of the complaint alleging fraud in the inducement to enter into the oral, multi-year employment agreement. Appellees’ argument that the economic loss rule bars the fraudulent inducement claim is specious; nevertheless, it is clear that, under Florida law, appellant has no enforceable claim. Given the lower court’s error in relying on ap-pellees’ “economic loss” argument, appellant should perhaps have an opportunity to amend, but given my conclusion, based on the facts already sworn to by appellant, that amendment would be futile, I concur in the dismissal of appellee, Wesley C. Paxson, Sr.

We have no jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Count II against Paxson Electric Company since Count I is still pending against that defendant.