FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Peter A. Dubensky
and Andrea McHugh, Judges.
A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten of Vaka Law Group, P.L., Tampa,
Jessica Kirkwood Alley of Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Tampa,
and Raquel Ramirez Jefferson of Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Tampa,
for Appellee 1st Source Insurance, Inc., an Indiana
appearance for remaining Appellees.
Tehrani appeals the final judgment entered in favor of 1st
Source Insurance, Inc. Because the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment on Tehrani's intentional
misrepresentation claim, we reverse that portion of the final
judgment. As to Tehrani's other claims, we affirm the
final judgment without comment.
complaint alleged that in late 2007, he was considering
purchasing a home on Casey Key Road in Osprey, Florida. In
early 2008, Tehrani entered into a contract to purchase the
property contingent upon the condition of the property and
its carrying costs, including the cost of flood insurance.
The cost of flood insurance was dependent upon whether the
home was located in a costal barrier resource area (CBRA).
Tehrani asked 1st Source Insurance, his insurance broker, to
advise him as to the insurability of the Casey Road Property
as well as the cost of any available flood insurance.
real property located in CBRAs is not eligible for federally
backed flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), 1st Source advised Tehrani to obtain an
elevation certificate which would determine whether the Casey
Road Property was in a CBRA. If the property was located in a
CBRA, private flood insurance would be available, but at
drastically increased rates. Tehrani hired Strayer Surveying
and Mapping to conduct an elevation survey, and Strayer
generated an elevation certificate that incorrectly provided
that the Casey Key Property was not located in a CBRA.
on the incorrect elevation certificate, 1st Source advised
Tehrani that NFIP flood insurance was available and provided
quotes. Tehrani alleged that he relied on these
representations and insurance quotes in deciding to close on
the Casey Key Property. 1st Source ultimately represented
that it had obtained a flood insurance policy on the
property, and Tehrani paid premiums for the policy.
February 2010, the mistake in Strayer's original
elevation certificate was discovered, and Strayer issued a
corrected certificate. The corrected certificate showed that
the Casey Key property was actually located in a CBRA.
filed suit against Strayer in May 2011 but did not add 1st
Source to the suit until it filed its third amended complaint
in March 2013. In the intentional misrepresentation claim
against 1st Source, the complaint alleged that on multiple
occasions, 1st Source represented that flood insurance was
available or had been procured at certain rates for the Casey
Key property. Tehrani specifically identified these
statements and attached the emails to the complaint. He
insisted he justifiably relied on these representations in
deciding to close on the property. Tehrani further alleged
that 1st Source was on notice that the insurance quotes it
provided were false and that flood insurance was not
available at the quoted rates for the Casey Key property. The
complaint further alleged that contrary to 1st Source's
representations, a flood insurance policy was never issued
for the Casey Key property. Tehrani claimed that he was
misled into believing that the property was insurable and, as
a result, suffered damages because he was exposed to
inordinately high flood insurance premiums and the
property's location in a CBRA reduced its value.
trial court applied Indiana law to Tehrani's
claims. On appeal, neither party disputes that
Indiana law applies. The court granted summary judgment in
favor of 1st Source on Tehrani's intentional
misrepresentation claim, applying a two-year statute of
limitations. See Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4(a)
the trial court entered a final judgment, Tehrani timely
appealed. On appeal, Tehrani maintains that the trial court
erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations to his
intentional misrepresentation claim. He argues that the trial
court should have applied the six-year statute of limitations
applicable to claims for "relief ...