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:Sobi v. First South Bank, Inc., 946 So.2d 615, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
Second District:Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 896 So.2d 787, 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Third District:Flagship Resort Development Corp. v. Interval Intern., Inc., 28 So.3d 915, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Fourth District: Meruelo v. Mark Andrew of Palm Beaches, Ltd., 12 So.3d 247, 250-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
Fifth District: Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Rural/Metro Corp. of Florida, 994 So.2d 1202, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
Florida Federal Courts
Eleventh Circuit: Centurion Air Cargo, Inc. v. United Parcel Service Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2005).
Southern District: Intercoastal Realty, Inc. v. Tracy, 2010 WL 1510848, *9 (S.D. Fla. April 16, 2010)
Middle District: Sewell v. D’Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 1228, 1257-58 (M.D. Fla. 2009)
Northern District: Langhorne v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 432 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1277 (N.D. Fla. 2006)
[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).
