damage claim in Florida

2017See Southstar Equity, LLC v. Lai Chau, 998 So. 2d 625, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Where a special verdict supports the same damage claim on two or more theories of liability, if one of the theories of liability is not affected by harmful error, an error with respect to another theory of liability that would be considered harmful if the - 15 - affected theory of liability were viewed in isolation is rendered harmless because the verdict is independently supported by another theory of liability.”); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. Wyatt, 405 So. 2d 136

2008See ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. Wyatt, 405 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). *632 For reasons similar to the reasons that the erroneous exclusion of the redacted version of the lease provisions was not harmful with respect to the misrepresentation theories of liability, we conclude that it is not reasonably probable that the jury's decision regarding punitive damages would have been different if the error had not occurred.

2017See Southstar Equity, LLC v. Lai Chau, 998 So. 2d 625, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Where a special verdict supports the same damage claim on two or more theories of liability, if one of the theories of liability is not affected by harmful error, an error with respect to another theory of liability that would be considered harmful if the - 15 - affected theory of liability were viewed in isolation is rendered harmless because the verdict is independently supported by another theory of liability.”); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. Wyatt, 405 So. 2d 136

2008See ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. Wyatt, 405 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). *632 For reasons similar to the reasons that the erroneous exclusion of the redacted version of the lease provisions was not harmful with respect to the misrepresentation theories of liability, we conclude that it is not reasonably probable that the jury's decision regarding punitive damages would have been different if the error had not occurred.

2003See Esancy, supra; Dutcher v. Allstate Ins.

2001See Esancy, supra; Dutcher v. Allstate Ins.

2026However, actions taken after the happening of a tortious act are not admissible on the issue of punitive damages, nor can those subsequent actions form the basis for bringing such a damage claim.” (citing Jones v. Alayon, 162 So. 3d 360 , 365–66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 14 malicious action on the part of a managing agent” of C&C Contractors.

2023See Jones v. Alayon, 162 So. 3d 360 , 365–66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding that evidence of post-accident bad acts can improperly inflame the jury and incite in them the desire to punish the defendant even when no punitive damages were sought).

2026Universal's argument that the Greenakers acquiesced to the trial court's procedure in doing so is unsupported by the record. 7 judgment can either produce evidence that X is not so or point out that the nonmoving party lacks the evidence to prove X." (alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993 , 996–97 (8th Cir. 2018))); see also Saunders v. Alois, 604 So. 2d 18 , 19–20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("The trial court's ruling was erroneous because the motion in limine was in essence a substitute for a motion for partial summary judgment on a portion of the damage cla

2026Universal's argument that the Greenakers acquiesced to the trial court's procedure in doing so is unsupported by the record. 7 judgment can either produce evidence that X is not so or point out that the nonmoving party lacks the evidence to prove X." (alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993 , 996–97 (8th Cir. 2018))); see also Saunders v. Alois, 604 So. 2d 18 , 19–20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("The trial court's ruling was erroneous because the motion in limine was in essence a substitute for a motion for partial summary judgment on a portion of the damage cla

2026Universal's argument that the Greenakers acquiesced to the trial court's procedure in doing so is unsupported by the record. 7 judgment can either produce evidence that X is not so or point out that the nonmoving party lacks the evidence to prove X." (alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993 , 996–97 (8th Cir. 2018))); see also Saunders v. Alois, 604 So. 2d 18 , 19–20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("The trial court's ruling was erroneous because the motion in limine was in essence a substitute for a motion for partial summary judgment on a portion of the damage cla

2017See Southstar Equity, LLC v. Lai Chau, 998 So. 2d 625, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Where a special verdict supports the same damage claim on two or more theories of liability, if one of the theories of liability is not affected by harmful error, an error with respect to another theory of liability that would be considered harmful if the - 15 - affected theory of liability were viewed in isolation is rendered harmless because the verdict is independently supported by another theory of liability.”); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. Wyatt, 405 So. 2d 136

2015See 1500 Coral Towers, 112 So.3d at 543-44 (“When an insurance contract contains a provision which applies to notice of the damage claim, an insured must give notice of the loss that implicates a potential claim without waiting for the full extent of the damages to become apparent.”) (emphasis added); Waldrep, 400 So.2d at 785 (“[T]he insured could not wait until the full extent of the damage to the aircraft was apparent, because the policy covered any ‘occurrence’ resulting in injury to the aircraft.”); Kendall Lakes Towers Condo.

2015See 1500 Coral Towers, 112 So.3d at 543-44 (“When an insurance contract contains a provision which applies to notice of the damage claim, an insured must give notice of the loss that implicates a potential claim without waiting for the full extent of the damages to become apparent.”) (emphasis added); Waldrep, 400 So.2d at 785 (“[T]he insured could not wait until the full extent of the damage to the aircraft was apparent, because the policy covered any ‘occurrence’ resulting in injury to the aircraft.”); Kendall Lakes Towers Condo.

2005See Southland Const. v. Greater Orlando Aviation, 860 So.2d 1031, 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

2005Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla.1956)); Williams v. Bay Hosp., Inc., 471 So.2d 626, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that the remedy to avoid claims for impermissible elements of damage is a motion to strike the damage claim, or an objection at trial to the damage claim, but not dismissal of the complaint); Williams v. Legree, 206 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) ("[A] complaint which sufficiently states a cause of action is not rendered vulnerable to a motion to dismiss by its allegation of an improper element of damages.").

2005Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla.1956)); Williams v. Bay Hosp., Inc., 471 So.2d 626, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that the remedy to avoid claims for impermissible elements of damage is a motion to strike the damage claim, or an objection at trial to the damage claim, but not dismissal of the complaint); Williams v. Legree, 206 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) ("[A] complaint which sufficiently states a cause of action is not rendered vulnerable to a motion to dismiss by its allegation of an improper element of damages.").

2005Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla.1956)); Williams v. Bay Hosp., Inc., 471 So.2d 626, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that the remedy to avoid claims for impermissible elements of damage is a motion to strike the damage claim, or an objection at trial to the damage claim, but not dismissal of the complaint); Williams v. Legree, 206 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) ("[A] complaint which sufficiently states a cause of action is not rendered vulnerable to a motion to dismiss by its allegation of an improper element of damages.").