punitive damage claim in Florida

2025See Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Punitive damage amendments are different than traditional amendments in that section 768.72 has created a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damage claim until the trial court rules that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages.”).

2025See Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Punitive damage amendments are different than traditional amendments in that section 768.72 has created a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damage claim until the trial court rules that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages.”).

2023Allowing a plaintiff to proceed with a punitive damages claim 6 subjects the defendant to financial discovery that would otherwise be off limits . . . and potentially subjects the defendant to uninsured losses.” TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 , 520 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); see also Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A]lthough section 768.72(1) is procedural in nature, it also provides a substantive right to parties not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisit

2023“Punitive damage amendments are different than traditional amendments in that section 768.72 has created a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damage claim until the trial court rules that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages.” Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citation omitted). “[T]he standard that applies to determine whether a reasonable basis has been shown to plead a claim for punitive damages should be similar to the standard that is applied to determine whether a complaint states a cause of acti

2017Parties have a substantive right “not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So.2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995)).

2017Parties have a substantive right “not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995)).

2024Ins. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24 , 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) 30 (recognizing that "trial courts have a 'gatekeeping' role to preclude a punitive damages claim where no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery exists" (emphasis added) (quoting Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017))); cf. 701 Palafox, LLC v. Scuba Shack, Inc., 367 So. 3d 624 , 627–28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) ("In reviewing whether the trial court's ruling that Scuba Shack made the necessary showing under section 768.72 to allow it to assert a claim for punitive damages, we view the evidence in the light most favo

2024Ins. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24 , 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) 30 (recognizing that "trial courts have a 'gatekeeping' role to preclude a punitive damages claim where no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery exists" (emphasis added) (quoting Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017))); cf. 701 Palafox, LLC v. Scuba Shack, Inc., 367 So. 3d 624 , 627–28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) ("In reviewing whether the trial court's ruling that Scuba Shack made the necessary showing under section 768.72 to allow it to assert a claim for punitive damages, we view the evidence in the light most favo

2017Parties have a substantive right “not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So.2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995)).

2017Parties have a substantive right “not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995)).

2017See Lucas, 813 So.2d at 973 (“We conclude that the ‘if any’ language of [rule 1.442(c)(2)(E)] requires a proposal for settlement to include terms for settlement of a punitive damage claim only when the pleadings contain a pending claim for punitive damages.”).

2017See Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“We conclude that the ‘if any’ language of subsection (E) [2] requires a proposal for settlement to include terms for settlement of a punitive damage claim only when the pleadings contain a pending claim for punitive damages.

2013Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

2005A formal evidentiary hearing is not mandated by the statute.") (citation omitted); Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ("[A]n evidentiary hearing is not mandated by the statute before a trial court has authority to permit an amendment.

2026This procedure needs to be followed exactly as required by statute, using the standards set forth in the statute. 678 So. 2d 472, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (emphasis added); cf. Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 , 371–72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Whether the entitlement to plead a claim for punitive damages has been established must be determined under the procedure and standards set forth in the statute, and our finding in the earlier appeal that respondents failed to establish that there is no material issue of disputed fact concerning the fraud claim is not the equiv

1997Corp., 678 So.2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding what section 768.72 requires is that a plaintiff who has pleaded punitive damages must offer a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages and obtain an order authorizing the maintenance of the punitive damage claim as a predicate to conducting discovery of a defendant’s financial worth.) Accordingly, the instant petition is granted and the order under review quashed.

2013Henn v. Sandler, 589 So.2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

1997Henn v. Sandler, 589 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Will v. Systems Eng'g Consultants, Inc., 554 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). [2] Pursuant to Florida Statute section 768.72 (1995), a punitive damage claim can be supported by a proffer of evidence.

2005Hence, an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is offered and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by the statute in order to determine whether a reasonable basis has been established to plead punitive damages, See Surrey Place of Ocala v. Goodwin, 861 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that a hearing on a motion to amend to allege punitive damages is not necessary); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366 , 369 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("Pursuant to Florida Statute section 768.72 (1995), a punitive damage claim ca

1998Id. at 368-69 .

1996The court quoted Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), with approval as follows: [It] is the height of naivete’ to suggest that a sworn statement of one’s net worth must be accepted as the final word on that important subject.

1994Broad latitude regarding discovery in punitive damage claims has been allowed by this court in Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), which was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1979).

2022Id.; see also Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A]lthough section 768.72(1) is procedural in nature, it also provides a substantive right to parties not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court”.) For these reasons, “punitive damages are reserved for truly culpable behavior and are intended to express society's collective outrage.” KIS Grp., LLC v. Moquin, 263 So. 3d 63, 65-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quotation omitted).

2020See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (requiring three procedural steps: attachment of the proposed amended complaint to the motion to amend; service of the proffer or other evidence to support the punitive damage claim; and an affirmative finding by the trial court that the plaintiff made a reasonable showing by evidence to support a punitive damage claim).

2017Swanson, 128 So.3d at 918 (concluding that when “liability for punitive damages was no longer at issue ... [tjhere was no reason to admit evidence of [defendant’s] drug use in a bifurcated first phase other than to inflame the jury and increase the compensatory damages verdict”).

2010See, e.g., First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277 (Fla.1985).

2006The punitive damage inquiry, unlike that for compensatory damages, "focuses primarily on the egregiousness of the defendant's conduct." Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014, 1019 (5th Cir.1992).