Accountants not liable to shareholders says Florida Court.
The plaintiffs claimed they had invested in the bank in reliance on these financial statements, which they alleged contained false representations. The plaintiffs' investment subsequently was lost when the bank became insolvent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence claim, but they appealed. In reviewing the claim, the appellate court noted that Florida, in adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 552, extends liability to an accountant only when the accountant knows at the time the work is done that a limited group of third parties intends to rely on the work for a specific transaction. Without that knowledge and the use of that information for a specific transaction, of which the accountant is aware, Florida law does not permit liability against the accountant. The appellate court also dismissed the claim.
In this case, although the plaintiffs were corporate shareholders who relied on the audit report and audited financial statements, the trial court ruled they did not make up the kind of limited group meant by the Restatement. In addition, the CPA firm was not aware of any specific transaction at the time of the undertaking. Consequently, the accounting firm owed no duty to plaintiff shareholders. (Machata v. Seidman & Seidman, 644 So. 2d 114, Fla. App. 4 Dist., 1994)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Journal of Accountancy|
|Article Type:||Brief Article|
|Date:||Jul 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||The upper-ladder salary gap.|
|Next Article:||Only the client is entitled to accountant's reports.|