breach of a duty to unknown persons in the commercial context and in cases involving alleged torts that result in physical harm). D. Analysis In this case, no duty to prevent the fraudulent and possibly criminal conduct of Prewett and JHIS arises. First, Jackson Hewitt had no special relationship with the Kamans or others to protect them from the misconduct of Prewett and JHIS. And Jackson Hewett had no special relationship with either Prewett or JHIS which would have required it to control their behavior. Assuming that the second category of exceptions is applicable to a claim for a purely economic injury, the facts of this case do not meet any of the three circumstances recognized as exceptions to the rule. First, there is no instrumentality 2d 754, 757-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Jenkins, 851 So.2d at 783-84 (holding that a
holding that a franchisor had no duty to supervise its automobile dealership or to warn a customer of the dealership who paid a substantial deposit for a limited edition lamborghini reventon and who did not receive either the car or the return of his deposit holding that an automobile dealership had no duty to prevent the misconduct of the executives of another company who misappropriated company funds to make the purchase of several automobiles from the dealership holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding that a car dealership could be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its employee who shot out the tires of the plaintiffs truck during a repossession attempt