Invo would have to prove a different set of facts. For example, as Invo illustrates in their Initial Brief, in Count II of the Amended Complaint, Invo must prove all the ele ments for defrauding a present creditor under section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes. Invo can do this by proving that Somerset transferred the property in question without Invo receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and that Somerset was insolvent or became so after the transfer. See § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). These elements are different than the ones required for Invo to prove a breach of contract action and are plainly independent of the contract; thus, they are not barred by the economic loss rule. See Pershing Indus., Inc., v. Estate of Sanz, 740 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(<HOLDING>). Lending further support to Invo’s position
holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself