Case Name: Robert MAUNSELL, Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-03-11
Citations: 707 So. 2d 916
Docket Number: No. 97-351
Parties: Robert MAUNSELL, Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 707
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Robert MAUNSELL, Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., Appellee.
No. 97-351.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 11, 1998.
Proenza, Roberts & Hurst, P.A., Thomas L. Hurst and Michael A. Vazquez, Miami, for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert K. Tucker and David P. Hartnett, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Maunsell appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of American General Life and Accident Insurance Company ("American General"). Maunsell left his job with Liberty National Insurance Company to go work with American General based upon American General's representative's promise to promote him to a management position, and allow him to hire his own staff within three months of employment. Subsequent to these promises, Maun-sell and American General signed a standard "Field Representative Employment Agreement" which was silent as to these promises. Maunsell began working at American General, but he was never promoted nor did he hire his own staff. Maunsell left employment with American General eight months later and filed a suit for fraudulent inducement. The trial court granted American General's motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.
American General's future promises regarding Maunsell's promotion and hiring of staff, which were to occur three months after employment, are not actionable as fraud. See Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So.2d 998, 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud."); see also Stoler v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 287 So.2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Evans v. Gray, 215 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 748 (Fla.1969); 27 Fla. Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit § 24 (1981). Because American General's statements are not actionable as fraud, there is no action for fraud in the inducement. Hence, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of American General.
Affirmed.