Woodson v. Martin (685 So. 2d 1240, 1996)

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

IS THE BUYER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS?

Woodson v. Martin, 663 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Our decision in HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So.2d 1238 (Fla.1996), controls. We answer the certified question in the negative, quash Woodson, and remand for proceedings consistent with HTP.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.