FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT May 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1390 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 38 4- CV-T-1 7- EAJ THUNDER MARINE, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, a D el aw ar e Co rp or at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (M ay 1 4, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant T hund er

Mari ne , I nc . ( “ T hund er

Mari ne ”) appe al s th e grant of sum

m ary j udgm ent in favor of D efendant-Appellee Brunswick2

Co rp or at ion( “ Br

unsw ic k” ) on T hund er

Mari ne ’ s br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty a nd
u n f a i r t r a d e p r a c t i c e s c l a i ms . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Th u n d e r M a r i n e s e l l s a n ds e rv i c e s r e c r e a t i o n a l b o a t s i n P i n e l l a s C o u n t y, Florida; Brunswick is a m anufacturer of rec reational boats sold by Thunder Mari ne . I n r es pons e to the r ap id c onsu m pti on o f w at er

a cc es s c au se d by residential condom inium developm ents, Br

unswick developed an in itiative called the A cc es s to W at er

P ro gr am ( the “ Pr ogr am ”)
. T he P ro gr am - - intro duc ed

to d ea l er s du ri n g t h e s u m

m ero f 2 0 0 4 -- en co u ra g ed d ea l er s t o ca l l t o Bru n s wi ck ’s at t en t i o n m ar i n as t h at we re fo r s al e. Th e P ro g ra m co n t emp l at ed Bru n s wi ck ’s
ev al ua tio n of

the se m ar ina s w itha n e y e tow ar d B runsw ic k a cquir ing m ar ina s in pa rtn ers hi p wi th it s d eal ers . Thom as E rrath, Brunswick’ s Gener al Manager of the Program , c alled T hund er Mari ne in N ove m

be r 2004 to ex pla in the P ro gr am a nd t o e nc our ag e Thunder Mar ine to advise Brunswick if T hund er Marine becam e aw are of a
m arina for

Brunswick to evaluate. In Mar ch 2005 , T hund er Marine lear ned that the Gr eat A m erican Marina (the “ Marina”) -- wher e T hund er Marine perf orm ed
w ork onit s c ust om er ’ s y ac hts - - w as f or sa le
. A lth oughT hund er Mari ne considered the Marina essential to its bus iness and claim s to have had the financial resources to purchase the Mar ina independ ently of Brunswic k, it chose to pursue aB ru

ns wi c k w a s una

wa re of the avai lab il it y

of the Mari na

wh e n T hund e r M ari ne c a lle d it to 1 B ru ns wi c k’ s atte nti on ; but Ma ri ne Max’s inte re st in pur c ha sin g the Ma ri na pr e date d th e Pr og ra

m. 3 pa rtne rs hip w ithBr

unsw ic k th ro ugh the P ro gr am . T hund er Mari ne br ough t the Marina to Br

unswick’ s attention and wa s led to believe bot h that Brunswick considered the Marina a def inite candidate for the Pr ogram and that Brunswick
wa s consid ering a partnership with T hund er Marine. Thunder Mar ine alleges that it ap pr ise d B runsw ic k of

the im porta nc e of

the Mari nato T hund er

Mari ne a nd o f T hund er Mari ne ’ s a

bil ity to pur ch as e the Mari naw ith out pa rt ic ipa tio n by Br unsw ic k. O ve r the ne xt f

ewm onths T hund er

Mari ne sou ght

ade ci sio n f

ro m Brunswick about goin g forward on the Marina w ith Thunder Marine; Br unswick failed to disclose to Thund er Marine the criter ia used to evaluate potenti al pr ope rt ie s or

pa rtne rs hip s. B runsw ic k a lso f ai le d to dis cl ose tha t T hund er Mari ne did no t satisfy

Brunswick’ s partnering criteria under the Program for this Marina. A nd u nkno w n to T hund er Mari ne , Br

unsw ic k w as e nga ge d indis cu ssi ons ab out the Mari naw ithMari ne Ma x, a nothe r Br unsw ic k de al er

a nd a c om pe tit or of Thu nd er Ma rin e. D ur ing m

uc h of 200 5, e nti tie s othe r than T hund er Mari ne , Br

unsw ic k a nd Marine Ma x, put in con tracts for the purchase of the Mar ina. I n early Oc tober 1Br

unswick maintains that it had no ag ree ment to participate with Marine Max until the eve of 2 closin g . T hun d e r

M ar in e c a ll s o ur

a tt e n ti o nto e xte n s iv e d is c u s s io n s b e tw e e nM ar in e M a x and B ru ns wi c k d ur ingthe tim e wh e n T hund e r M ari ne mai ntai ns it w a s mi sle d to be lie ve that, i f Br unswick dec ided to pursue the Marina , it would do so in partnership with Thunder Ma rine. The sales agr eeme nt on the M arina contained a confidentiality clause ; Thunder Marine did not lear n the p urc h as er s ’ i d en t i t i es un t i l th e d ay o f c l o s i n g. 4 2 0 0 5 , t h e M ar i n a w as ag ai n o n t h e mark et ; an di n t h e l i g h to f B ru n s wi ck ’s
seem ing reluctance to pursue the Marina in partnership with T hund er Marine, T hund er Mari ne too k in iti al ste ps t o pu rc ha se the pr ope rty w ith out pa rt ic ipa tio n by Br unsw ic k. T hund er

Mari ne ha d se cu re d M ic ha el Me ag he r (the ow ne r of Ch ev ro le t de al er shi ps) a s aba ck -u p partne r on the Mari naif Br unsw ic k f ai le d to go forwar d. Me etings were held with the Marina’ s owner and dis cussion s had
w ithc ity of fi ci al s to r ev ie w T hund er Mari ne ’ s pl an s. B ut w he n T hund er Mari ne
an d it s ne w pa rtne r ar

ri ve d a t the Mari nain N ove m be r 2005 w iththe int en tio n of
m ak ing a n of

fe r, the y le ar ne d th e pr ope rty

a ga in w as und er

c ontra ct . O n 11 N ove m be r 2005 , Mari ne Ma x e xe cu te d a n a gr ee m en t t o pu rc ha se the Mari na ; the cl osi ng o cc ur

re d inF eb ru ar

y 200 6. I n th e en d, the Mari naw as a cquir ed thr ougha
ne w ly f orm ed c om pa ny ow ne d by

Mari ne Ma x a nd B runsw ic k. 2 T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at no r ea sona

ble f ac t- fi nde r co uld

c onc lud e tha t an im

pli ed f idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p e xis te d be tw ee n T hund er Mari ne a ndNo claim is made that an express fiduciar y relationship existed. The dea ler a g ree ments entere d 3 int o b e tw e e n T hund e r M ari ne and B ru ns wi c k s ub sid iari e s d isc la im e x pr e ssl y t he existence of a fiduciar y relationship. The di s t ri ct court determined that the Prog ram-ba sed cla ims asserted by Thunder Ma

rine a g ainst the pare nt c ompany Br unswick wer e entirely

separ ate f

rom and c ollatera l to t he de a le r a g re e me nts . So we a ssume that th e e xpre ss d e nia l of a fi du c iary re latio ns hip in t

he se ag ree ments constitutes no ex press disclaimer of a f iduciary relati o n ship betwee n Thunder Ma rine and B ru ns wi c k f or Pr og ra m- ba se d c la ims
. 5 Brunswick. U nder Florida law , a fiduciary relationship m ay

be im plied in law 3 ba se d onthe spe ci fi c fa ct s and c ir cu m stanc es sur ro undi ng the pa rt ie s r el at ion shi p
an d th e tr an sa ct ionin w hic h th ey a re inv olv ed
. S ee D oe v. E va ns, 814 S o. 2d 3 70, 374 (Fla. 2002). “ ‘ If a

relation of trust and confidence exists between the parties (tha t i s to say

w he re c onf

ide nc e is r ep ose d by

one pa rty

a nd a tr ust a cc ep te d by

the oth er , or w he re c onf

ide nc e ha s be ena cquir ed a nd a buse d) , tha t i s su ff

ic ie nt a s a pr ed ic at e fo r re lie f. ’ ” Id
. quo tin g Q uin n v. P hip ps, 113 S o. 419 , 421 ( 1927 ). T he ind isp en sa

ble c ondi tio n of

a n im pli ed f idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p is “ som e de gr ee of de pe nde nc y

on o ne sid e an d so m e de gr ee of und er ta kin g onthe oth er

sid e to advis e, c ouns el , a nd p ro te ct the w eake r pa rty . ” W atkin s v. N CN B N at ’ l B an k of Fl a. , N
. A
. , 622 S o. 2d 1 063, 106 5 ( Fl a. 3d D CA199 3) ( int er na l qu ota tio n a nd citation om itted). A n arm s-length relationsh ip can supp ort no im plied-in-law fid uc ia ry ob li ga ti on s. See Tay lo r W oo dr ow Ho m es Flo rid a, In c. v. 4 /4 6- A Cor p., 8 5 0 So .2 d5 3 6 , 5 4 1 Fl a. 5 DC A 2 0 0 3 (“Wh en t h e p ar t i es ar e d ea l i n g at ar m ’s th6

le ngth, af

idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p do es not

e xis t be ca

use the re is no d

uty im pose d on either party

to protect or benefit the other. ”). Fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t purp ose s, w e vie w a ll fa ct s and draw a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to T hund er

Mari ne , the non -m ovant; the tr ue fa ct s m ay pr ove to be oth er

w ise
. S ee Mangi er i v. D CH H ea lth care A uth or ity , 304 F. 3d 1 072, 107 3 n. 2 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2)
. E ve n so vie w ed , the r ec or d a llo w s no th im posi tio n of

im pli ed -i n- la w f

idu ci ar y obl iga tio ns: T hund er

Mari ne f ai le d to pr of fe r suf fi ci en t i ndi ci a of

( 1) de pe nde nc y

of T hund er Mari ne on B runsw ic k; ( 2) a disparity

of savviness between T hund er Marine and Brunswick on m arina re al
es ta te inv es tm en ts g en er al ly or the Mari na

in pa rt ic ular; or

( 3) a n a cc ep ta nc e by Brunswick of a dutyto counsel or oth erw ise protect T hund er Marine. Thunder Mari ne a nd B runsw ic k ha d alon g- standi ng arm s- le ngth r el at ion shi p th ro ugh Brunswick subsidi aries; a succ essful relationship m ay have inclined Thunder Mari ne to pr oc ee d w ith out se cu ri ng s om e ag re em en t a bout the pr opos ed

m ar ina
ve ntu re . B ut w e fa il to s ee sup port i n th e re co rd to showtha t this pr e- ex ist ing
arm s-length m anufacturer -dealer relationship was transform ed into a fiduciary
r e l a t i o n s h i p w h e n t h e p a rt i e s s h i f t e dt o d i r e c td i s c u s s i o n s ab o u tt h e P r o g r a m. W e also note -- a s did th e district court -- that, even if we we re to assum e a
m at er ia l i ssu e of

f ac t e xis ts s uf

fi ci en t t o c re at e a j ur

y iss ue on the na tur e of

theAs discussed by the district court, the c ausal bre ak betwe en B runswick’ s alleg ed misconduct a nd 4 the dama g e s c la ime d b y

Thun de r R ive r i s f

a ta l to Thun de r R ive r’ s unf a ir tr a de pr a c tic e c la im, Florida Dec eptive and Unfair T rade Practice s Act, F la. Stat. § 501.201. 7 relationship betwee n Thunder Marine and Brunswick, the r ecord is undis puted tha t T hund er

Mari ne und er sto od the Mari na w as a va ila

ble f or sa le f or ape ri od i n O ct obe r an d N ove m

be r 2005 , kne w tha t othe r en tit ie s ha d be enint er es te d inthe Mari na , und er sto od tha t B runsw ic k w as und er no o bli ga tio n to pa rtne r w ith T hund er Mari ne a nd d oubt ed

it w oul d do so. T hund er

Mari ne a rr an ge d aba ck -u p pa rtne r w ithw hom

it c oul d a ct if a nd w he n th e Mari nabe cam e av ai la ble ; and
w he n th at ha ppe ne d inO ct obe r 2005 , T hund er Mari naha d th e oppo rt

uni ty to purchase the Marina. But no offer w as m ade or option to purchase secure d before t h e p ro p er t y ag ai n we n tu n d erco n t ra ct , t h i s t i m e t o Ma ri n e M ax . B ru n s wi ck ’s
earl ie r re pr es en tatio ns w er e not the pr oxi m at e ca

use of T hund er Mari ne ’ s lo ss o f the Marina. 4 AFFIR MED.