Breach Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing –
[1] Elements and Case Citations
(1) Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to a written contract:
(2) The contract is ambiguous about the permissibility
or scope of the conduct in question;
(3) Defendant, through a conscious and deliberate act,
fails or refuses to discharge contractual responsibilities that unfairly frustrates the contract’s purpose and disappoints the Plaintiff’s expectations;
(4) Defendant’s breach deprives the Plaintiff of the contract’s benefits; and
(5) Plaintiff suffers damages.
____________________________________
Florida State Courts
First District: Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092, 1097 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999)
Fourth District: Hospital Corp. of America v. Florida Medical Center, Inc., 710 So. 2d 573
(Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
Florida Federal Courts
Eleventh Circuit: Burger King v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1318 (11th Cir. 1999).
Southern District: Barnes v. Burger King Corp., 932 F. Supp. 1420, 1437-40
(S.D. Fla. 1996)
Middle District: Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, (M.D. Fla. 2000)
[2] Defenses to Claim for Breach Implied Covenant
of Good Faith & Fair Dealing
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other
standard defenses. See § 60.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years).
(3) Action cannot be maintained “(a) in derogation of the express terms of
the underlying contract or (b) in the absence of breach of an express term of the underlying contract.” See Burger King v. Weaver,
169 F.3d 1310, 1318 (11th Cir. 1999).
(4) The covenant does not apply where the contract’s express terms define the
permissibility of the conduct. Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, (M.D. Fla. 2000).
(5) Action not available in cases based on breach of at-will employment contract.
Kelly v. Gill, 544 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
(6) Claim is subject to dismissal as redundant where the conduct at issue is
duplicative of breach of contract claim. Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, (M.D. Fla. 2000).
