Estoppel, Promissory -


[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1) Defendant (the promisor) made a misrepresentation of a material fact;

(2) Defendant should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of plaintiff (the promisee) or a third person;

(3) Defendant’s misrepresentation induces such action or forbearance by plaintiff or a third person; and

(4) Plaintiff suffers a detriment caused by reliance on the misrepresentation.

____________________________________

Florida State Courts

Supreme Court: Blumberg v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061, 1067 (Fla. 2001).

First District: W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Construction, Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)

Second District: FCCI Ins. Co. v. Cayce’s Excavation, Inc., 901 So. 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)

Third District: Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643, 650 (Fla. 3^rd DCA 2006)

Fourth District: Advanced Marketing Systems Corp. v. ZK Yacht Sales, 830 So.2d 924, 927 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2002)

Fifth District: Warren v. Department of Admin., 554 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)

Florida Federal Courts

Eleventh Circuit: Maccaferri Gabions, Inc. v. Dynateria Inc., 91 F.3d 1431, 1443 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1167 (1997)

Southern District: Argonaut Dev. Group, Inc. v. SWH Funding Group Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

Middle District: Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corp. N. Am., Inc., NO. 6:01CV1405-ORL-28KRS 2003 WL 24051561, *7 (Fla. M.D. May 9, 2003)

Florida Rules

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (general rules of pleading; estoppel as affirmative defense)

References

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1976)

[2] Defenses to Claim for Promissory Estoppel

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 60.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years) (Florida courts have not addressed the applicable statute of limitations for estoppel claims).

(3) A party’s truthful statement of present intentions regarding a future act does not give rise to a claim for promissory estoppel. W. R. Grace and Co. v. Geodata Servs., Inc., 547 So. 2d 919, 924 (Fla. 1989).

(4) The promise must be definite in time and terms. W. R. Grace and Co. v. Geodata Servs., Inc., 547 So. 2d 919, 924 (Fla. 1989), citing Hygema v. Markley, 137 Fla. 1, 187 So. 373, 380 (1939).

(5) Promissory estoppel cannot be employed to circumvent the statute of frauds, unless the plaintiff can show ``the promise is definite, of a substantial nature, and established by clear and convincing evidence’’. W. R. Grace and Co. v. Geodata Servs., Inc., 547 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 1989).

(6) Reliance is unreasonable and unjustifiable when the promisee enters into a subsequent written contract with the promisor which contains an integration clause. Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1420, 1441 (S.D. Fla. 1996).

(7) The promisee cannot base an estoppel claim against the state for mistaken statements of law. See Warren v. Dept. of Admin., 554 So. 2d 568, 571 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

(8) The promisee had knowledge of, or reasonable ability to learn, the true facts. See Irvine v. Cargill Investor Servs., Inc., 799 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1986).

(9) The representation must be definite and specific, and not susceptible to multiple interpretations. See Irvine v. Cargill Investor Servs., Inc., 799 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1986).