The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . plaintiff's ability to bring a punitive damages claim in a civil action in Florida is governed by § 768.72 . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." § 768.72 . . . Dukes argued that her motion should be granted because § 768.72(3)(b) specifically includes misconduct . . . found these allegations against non-management personnel to be contrary to the plain language of § 768.72 . . . Dukes's motion failed to meet § 768.72(3)'s requirements for pleading a punitive damages claim. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2)(a) ). . . .
. . . Petitioner points to section 768.72(3), Florida Statutes (2018), which provides that: (3) In the case . . . Respondents have argued that Petitioner waived the right to raise challenges under section 768.72(3), . . . In that opinion, the Florida Supreme Court analyzed section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993), and held . . . Four years after Globe Newspaper Co. , the legislature made substantive revisions to section 768.72. . . . See § 768.72(3), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . The order cited Soffer, considered the requirements imposed by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2016 . . . Ledo's proffer "satisfies the legal requirements of section 768.72." . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2) ). . . . Under § 768.72(3), punitive damages may be imposed against a corporation "based on the actions of an . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2) (2005) ). Plaintiff's amended complaint does not even come close. . . .
. . . limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Globe Newspaper, 658 So.2d at 519 ("We read section 768.72 to create a substantive legal right not to . . . Newspaper, 658 So.2d at 520 ("[A] plenary appeal cannot restore a defendant's statutory right under section 768.72 . . . jurisdiction lies to review whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . no written findings identifying any evidence considered to constitute a "reasonable basis" ( section 768.72 . . . requires us to consider "whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Stat. § 768.72 against defendants ...." Levin v. . . . not a green light to add punitive damage claims without following the procedure mandated by section 768.72 . . . Diaz also named Maylene Jimenez, a comptroller of CCYC, as a defendant, but has not served her. § 768.72 . . .
. . . Because the court failed to follow the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, we . . . the previous ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court was required to conduct a section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that: "In any civil action, no claim for . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." § 768.72 . . . present case, it is clear that the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . leave to amend their complaint to state a claim for punitive damages against ISMG pursuant to section 768.72 . . .
. . . limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements in section 768.72 . . .
. . . Pritchard") motion to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . that the trial court applied the correct law and complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . the trial court's order, alleging that the court failed to comply with the requirements of section 768.72 . . . Because section 768.72 creates "a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damages claim . . . Stat. § 768.72 against defendants ...." . . .
. . . Sandler , 589 So.2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc) (stating that section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . In its order, the court acknowledged that, pursuant to section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, Plaintiffs . . . Rogers , 215 So.3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we held that section 768.72(1)"requires the trial court to . . . We agree with Petitioners that an evaluation of the evidentiary showing required by section 768.72 does . . . In the present case, the trial court cited Holmes in interpreting section 768.72(1)'s "reasonable showing . . . Conclusion "[ Section 768.72(1) ] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim . . .
. . . order granting Respondents' motion to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . a claim for punitive damages, we limit our review to whether the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . not demonstrated that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Further, the trial court order granting the motion to amend was, consistent with section 768.72(1), based . . . the sufficiency of the evidence rather than compliance with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2) (2009) and Humana Health Ins. Co. of Fla., Inc. v. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(1) - (2) ; see also Gerlach v. Cincinnati Ins. . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a) (internal quotes omitted). . . . Id. at § 768.72(2)(b) (internal quotes omitted). Against this backdrop, Counts I-IV remain. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2). . . .
. . . did not include a claim for punitive damages, and no motion to add such a claim pursuant to section 768.72 . . .
. . . punitive damages, failed to apply the correct law, i.e., the procedural standards set forth in section 768.72 . . .
. . . See § 768.72(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .
. . . Savage , 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987), superseded by statute on other grounds , § 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . Chapter 99-225, section 22, Laws of Florida, amended section 768.72(2)(b), Florida Statutes, to require . . . McFarland & Sons, Inc., 815 So.2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 n.9 (Fla. 2003); and then citing §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. . . .
. . . failed to make the proffer required to assert such claims against corporate defendants under section 768.72 . . . they included in the body of their motion the facts asserted to meet the proffer required by section 768.72 . . . petitioner/defendants, and (2) the lack of allegations and evidence or proffers directed to section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(3) The plaintiffs sued the four limited liability companies that are the petitioners in . . . Three subparagraphs of section 768.72(3) state the factual prerequisites for establishing punitive damages . . .
. . . Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that a punitive damages claim is permitted only . . . comport with the procedural requirements for entertaining and ruling on a motion to amend under section 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2)(a). . . . .” § 768.72(2)(b). . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2), Fla. Stat. . Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. N. Am. . . .
. . . Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides in relevant part: “In any civil action, no claim . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 768.72 . . . We specifically noted that, because section 768.72 creates a substantive right, the abuse of discretion . . . Section 768.72(1) “create[s] a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damages claim . . . We agree with Petitioners that an evaluation of the evi-dentiary showing required by section 768.72 does . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). . . .
. . . file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(1) provides that defendants in civil actions shall be free from claims of punitive damages . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 768.72 . . . Id. at § 768.72(2)(b) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Id. at § 768.72(1); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f). . . .
. . . Avante Group, Inc., 900 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which, pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . . See § 768.72(3), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . whether Respondent’s punitive damages claim satisfied the applicable standard set forth in section 768.72 . . . the complaint, Petitioner argued that Respondent's claim of "gross negligence” pursuant to section 768.72 . . . Respondent’s motion to amend also cited the appropriate version of section 768.72 and acknowledged that . . . on Despain because that decision was based on a prior version of the punitive damages statute, see § 768.72 . . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, Petitioner made no such argument below. . . .
. . . That statute, like the more general punitive damage statute, section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2015 . . . under the pertinent evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by [section 768.72 . . . current, amended rule requires a hearing as' a matter of right because those cases analyzed only section 768.72 . . .
. . . .” § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. 'Stat. (2015). . . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that a claim for punitive damages will not be permitted . . . Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Pursuant to section 768.72, a proffer of evidence . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . mandatory language in “[pjresuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by court”), and § 768.72 . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . 520 (Fla.1995). ' The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . on whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72 . . . Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a heightened standard for imposing punitive damages . . .
. . . review is limited to whether the trial court conformed to the procedural requirements ■ of section 768.72 . . . entity (that is, whether Berezovsky had made the requisite evidentiary showing required by section 768.72 . . . a punitive damages claim to proceed when the essential requirements of law, as embodied in' section 768.72 . . . inquiry is limited to whether the trial court conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . While section 768.72(3) requires a specific evidentiary showing that TRG, a legal entity, either (i) . . .
. . . legislatively established permissive scope of punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 768.72 . . . punitive damages under the negligence count in his original complaint in an attempt to comply with section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72 pertains only to a demand for punitive damages. . . .
. . . . § 768.72) (noting that plaintiff could bring a common law fraud claim challenging the conduct prohibited . . .
. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . court’s order allowing a punitive damages claim to proceed when the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Because the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, and we are not permitted . . .
. . . add a demand for punitive damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) and section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(1), titled “Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages,” states in pertinent . . . Section 768.72(1) reveals a clear legislative intent for defendants to be free from claims for punitive . . . punitive damages mirror the statutory directive as to proof of punitive damages as set forth in section 768.72 . . . Reynolds was “personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” § 768.72(2), Fla. . . .
. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “[a] defendant may be held liable for punitive . . . despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.” § 768.72 . . . conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.” § 768.72 . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . “(W]e read section 768.72 as creating a positive legal right in a party not to be subjected to financial . . .
. . . Stat. § 768.72(2). . . . . § 768.72(3). . . . .” § 768.72(2)(a). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting . . . § 768.72. . . . The Goodins contend that the punitive damages provisions of § 768.72 et seq. do not apply to this case . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2); Myers v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201, 1215 (11th Cir.2010). . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b). . . .
. . . . § 768.72. . . .
. . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2014), provides in part: (1)In any civil action, no claim for punitive . . .
. . . Petitioner then filed a motion pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2013), for leave to amend . . .
. . . See § 768.72(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); Chrysler Corp. v. Wolmer, 499 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1986). . . .
. . . Subsections 768.72(2) and (8), Florida Statutes (2013), specify: (2) A defendant may be held liable for . . . proffer evidence satisfying any of the three categories of corporate involvement established in section 768.72 . . .
. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097,1099 (Fla.1987), super-ceded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). “ ‘Intentional misconduct’ means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . .
. . . The amendment to allow a claim for punitive damages Section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes creates a . . . Thus, section 768.72(1) provides “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted . . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . This does not comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72. . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2013). We deny the petition and write to clarify. . . . Because the trial court followed the proper procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . which would provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of [punitive] damages” as required by section 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(3)); see also Koutsouradis v. . . . Delta Air Lines, Inc., 427 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir.2005) (“Section 768.72(3) provides that punitive . . .
. . . . § 768.72(1). Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. . . .
. . . authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72; Hialeah Automotive, LLC v. Basidto, 22 So.3d 586, 590 (Fla.Dist.Ct. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . .
. . . La Corte to comply with the procedure applicable to employers and corporate defendants under section 768.72 . . . constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the loss, damages, or injury suffered by the claimant. § 768.72 . . . directors of the Association — is, without more, misconduct of the Association for purposes of section 768.72 . . . rather than the specific and heightened rules of imposition established by the Legislature in section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(3)(b) applies to “officers, directors, or managers of the employer, principal, corporation . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2005), a defendant may be held liable for punitive damages . . .
. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), superceded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . . holding of Martin-Johnson, Inc. with regard to punitive damage claims in light of the adoption of section 768.72 . . .
. . . dismiss claims do not qualify for review by certiorari.”), superseded on other grounds by statute, § 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). “ ‘Intentional misconduct’ means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness . . .
. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . 768.737 provides, “Where punitive damages are available as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding, ss. 768.72 . . .
. . . damage claims does not extend to reviewing the sufficiency of eviden-tiary determinations under section 768.72 . . . while certiorari review is appropriate to determine whether the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2); see In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. . . . Stat. § 768.72 “is clear enough on its face to be applied without turning to potentially superseded case . . .
. . . See §§ 400.023(1), .0237, .0238; 768.72, Fla. . . .
. . . Introduction The provision in section 768.72, Florida Statutes, that no claim for punitive damages shall . . . The Trustee contends that section 768.72’s pleading requirements do not apply in federal court. . . . Section 768.72, of course, eliminates that tactical advantage in Florida state court. . . . No. 15. . § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). . Id. . Id. . Adv. Doc. No. 19. . Hanna v. . . . Cohen, 184 F.3d at 1297. . § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. . Id. . Porter v. . . .
. . . appropriate to determine whether a court has conducted the eviden-tiary inquiry required by section 768.72 . . . See Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1099, superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . . unavailable to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72 . . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . court may reconsider the plaintiffs motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72 . . .
. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2009) (emphasis added), provides that “[a] defendant may be held . . .
. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes, requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear . . .
. . . King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section 768.72 creates . . . Although the court in Globe declined to interpret section 768.72 to permit certiora-ri review to test . . . Thus, the procedure mandated by section 768.72 must be followed, and failure to adhere to that procedure . . . Section 768.72 provides in pertinent part: (2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only . . . As previously stated, section 768.72(1) provides that damages shall not be permitted unless there is . . .
. . . 2005) (“When a trial court is determining if a plaintiff has made a ‘reasonable showing’ under section 768.72 . . .
. . . codified the definition of “gross negligence” (as a predicate for a punitive damages claim) in section 768.72 . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2) (2005). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . In this case, the clear and convincing standard of proof required under § 768.72 is determinative. . . .
. . . . § 768.72(2). . . .
. . . Section 768.72(2) of the Florida Statute provides: (2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages . . . Stat. § 768.72(2) (2009). . . . Pursuant to Section 768.72 (2009), in order to be held directly liable for punitive damages, a plaintiff . . . Section 768.72(3) of the Florida Statute provides: (3) In the case of an employer, principal, corporation . . . Stat. § 768.72(3) (2009). . . .
. . . Pursuant to § 768.72, Florida Statutes, punitive damages on the common law claims under Counts IV — VII . . . despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. § 768.72 . . . conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct. § 768.72 . . .
. . . relief to review an order denying a petitioners request to add punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . dismissed, 659 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1995), the district court ruled that the procedure mandated by section 768.72 . . . The plain meaning of section 768.72 now requires a plaintiff to provide the court with a reasonable evidentiary . . . To allow punitive damages claims to proceed as before would render section 768.72 meaningless. . . . Furthermore, a plenary appeal cannot restore a defendant’s statutory right under section 768.72 to be . . .
. . . To plead a claim for punitive damages, a party must comply with section 768.72, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 768.72(1) provides that in any civil action no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted . . . Section 768.72(2) provides that after a claim for punitive damages is made, a defendant may be held liable . . . In the case of an employer, a principal, corporation or other legal entity, section 768.72(3) provides . . . See § 768.72(3)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . . § 768.72. . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . The White Construction line of cases predates the 1999 amendment to section 768.72 quoted above in the . . .
. . . remedy to determine whether the trial court has conformed to the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . the complaint titled “Claim for I mitive Damages,” on the grounds that this claim violated section 768.72 . . . “[Section 768.72 has created a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damage claim until . . . Petitioners note that Respondent failed to follow the proper procedures in section 768.72(1), Florida . . . See King, 658 So.2d at 520 (noting that the failure to follow the procedure set out in section 768.72 . . . the procedur requirements of sec-tiot 768.72, allowii Re;- pondent to skip a stej and allege a claim . . .
. . . certiorari is “to determine whether a court has conducted the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72 . . . record before us demonstrates that the circuit court comported with the procedural requirements section 768.72 . . . limited to determining whether the circuit court adhered to the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2004); First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. . . .
. . . allowing appellees to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages without complying with section 768.72 . . . Because the appellants waived their rights under section 768.72(1) by failing to appear, we affirm. . . . Section 768.72(1) provides in pertinent part that no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless . . . “However, a defendant’s right to relief under section 768.72 is a right that can be waived by failing . . . (“The procedural rights afforded by-section 768.72 can be waived by a failure to object.”). . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .
. . . claim for punitive damages, because the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing under section 768.72 . . .
. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . accounting where none has been pled or has ordered premature punitive damage discovery under section 768.72 . . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2003); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). . . . In this case, by not successfully asserting a statutory basis like section 768.72, the issue of personal . . .
. . . . § 768.72, as limited by Fla. . . . Stat. § 768.72[sic] therefore that claim should not be allowed to proceed and should be dismissed and . . . Stat. § 768.72(2) permits an award of punitive damages "if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing . . . Stat. 768.72(1) states, in relevant part, that: The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to . . .