After Stripping Away Reliance on Oral Agreements In order to evaluate Motorcity’s state law tort claims, we must focus precisely on the nature and contours of each. As noted above, the core of the D’Oench bar prevents any reliance by Motorcity on oral agreements. We must carefully examine the elements of each state law claim and the source of the obligations Motorcity seeks to impose on Southeast; only then can we assess whether there is any viable state law claim after stripping away all reliance upon oral agreements or representations. Motorcity asserts two state law claims, one based on fiduciary duty and one on negligence. We first address the fiduciary duty claim. 1. Fiduciary Duty Claim Motorcity’s proposed fiduciary duty claim requires it to establish that 191 So. 690 (1939) (<HOLDING>); Vassar v. Smith, 134 Fla. 346, 183 So. 705
holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding petition nominating candidate under socialist party violated the act where socialist labor party was entitled to protection of party name protection act holding that a party may not contract away the protection that a statute is intended to afford him nor may the other party to the contract exempt itself from its duty to comply with such statute holding that in an armslength transaction there is no duty on either party to act for the benefit or protection of the other party