Case Name: LINN-WELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Stuart Lichter and Barry Lang, Appellants, v. PRESTON & FARLEY, INC., and Crown Beverage Packaging, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-20
Citations: 666 So. 2d 558
Docket Number: Nos. 94-03170, 94-03168
Parties: LINN-WELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Stuart Lichter and Barry Lang, Appellants, v. PRESTON & FARLEY, INC., and Crown Beverage Packaging, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 666
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
LINN-WELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Stuart Lichter and Barry Lang, Appellants, v. PRESTON & FARLEY, INC., and Crown Beverage Packaging, Inc., Appellees.
Nos. 94-03170, 94-03168.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 20, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1996.
Richard B. Wilkes, L. Joseph Shaheen and Anthony T. Leon of Gardner, Wilkes, Sha-heen & Candelora, Tampa, for Appellants.
Terry A. Smiljanich of Blasingame, Foriz & Smiljanich, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Ap-pellee Preston & Farley.
No Appearance for Appellee Crown Beverage.

Opinion:
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
We need not recount the convoluted procedural events preceding the presence of this matter before us. It is sufficient to note that Linn-Well Development Corporation, Stuart Lichter and Barry Lang ("the Linn-Well litigants") have challenged the trial court's orders, in one instance denying the Linn-Well litigants' motion for relief from a final summary judgment and in a subsequent but related case granting a final summary judgment in favor of Preston & Farley, Inc. The Linn-Well litigants contend that Preston & Farley cannot benefit from res judicata and collateral estoppel as a result of orders entered in another but related lawsuit. We refrain from passing upon whether the foregoing principles are meritoriously asserted. We have done so because the Linn-Well litigants luge the view that the economic loss rule cannot bar their tort claim against Pres ton & Farley. That issue, which we deem pivotal, derives from the application of the economic loss rule to an action for fraud in the inducement alleged against a real estate broker. Within that limited setting, we affirm the trial court in the light of our en banc decision in Woodson v. Martin, 663 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the substance of the question certified in Woodson:
IS A BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE "ECONOMIC LOSS RULE" FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS?
ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.