Court Opinion

ID: 9565738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:26:38.925701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.046202
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In order for Florida Rock to recover against Moore on a theory of fraud, it needed to prove that Moore made a wilful misrepresentation of a material fact to it in order to induce Florida Rock to leave the gas at Moore’s station, and that Florida Rock relied upon this misrepresentation to its detriment. OCGA § 51-6-2; Robert & Co. Assoc. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership, 250 Ga. 680 (300 SE2d 503) (1983). There is, however, no evidence to show that Florida Rock relied on any false representations made by Moore. Rather, the evidence shows only that Exxon relied on Moore’s false representation and that it directed Florida Rock to leave the gas at Moore’s station. Under these facts I would affirm the Court of Appeals’s holding that the trial court erred in denying Moore’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of fraud.
*108Decided March 18, 1988
Reconsideration denied March 30, 1988.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, James M. Poe, Debra L. Mixon, for appellant.
Thomas R. Moran, for appellee.
As I understand the facts in this case Moore defrauded Exxon but not Florida Rock. Florida Rock had no obligation to indemnify Exxon under the circumstance where Exxon authorized Florida Rock to leave the gasoline with Moore. Florida Rock voluntarily indemnified Exxon and could at most claim an assignment of the contract claim. The fraud claim cannot be assigned.
I am authorized to state that Justice Clarke and Justice Bell join in this dissent.