CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19308, 2006 WL 3327079
...s. Miele,
656 So.2d at 472. Hence, Martin argues that the term "actions of a civil nature" in rule 1.010 does not include arbitration proceedings and, therefore, rule 1.525 does not apply. Subsequent to the decision in Miele, the Legislature enacted section
768.737 Florida Statutes (1999), which provides that sections
768.72,
768.725, and
768.73 do apply when punitive damages are available as a remedy in arbitration proceedings....
...tly enacts a statute." Ford v. Wainwright,
451 So.2d 471, 475 (Fla.1984). Generally, courts are permitted to consider subsequently enacted legislation in determining the meaning of a statute. [7] It is *1225 clear that the Legislature's enactment of section
768.737 indicates that the Legislature has a different view from that adopted by the court in Miele regarding the issue whether arbitration proceedings are "civil actions" within the meaning of section
768.73. We believe that enactment of section
768.737, in light of the decision in Miele, militates in favor of the view that the term "actions of a civil nature" in rule 1.010 includes motions for fees and costs filed in the circuit court that are based on awards emanating from arbitration proceedings....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityPhillips (2011)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18182, 2011 WL 5555691
...nt view from that *912 adopted by the court in Miele regarding the issue [of] whether arbitration proceedings are ‘civil actions’ within the meaning of section
768.73.” Id. The Fifth District reasoned that the legislature’s 1999 enactment of section
768.737, subsequent to the Miele decision, made clear its intent that section
768.73 governs arbitration as well as proceedings before the courts. Section
768.737 provides, “Where punitive damages are available as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding, ss....
...or. Moreover, such referral did not put an end to the action because it had to be confirmed by the circuit court, and the circuit court alone could determine entitlement to fees and the amount thereof. We cannot agree, however, that the enactment of section
768.737 represented a complete repudiation of Miele and certainly not a legislative directive that all arbi-trations are in fact “civil actions.” Section
768.73(2) was part of the 1986 Tort Reform and Insurance Act and reflected a philoso...
...itive damage awards can represent a windfall for the successful plaintiff even if such awards are otherwise appropriate to deter egregious misconduct on the part of the party being sued. Gordon v. State,
608 So.2d 800, 801-02 (Fla.1992). We consider section
768.737 to have been a legislative clarification of the punitive damages provision, the scope of which had previously been uncertain....
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityFenyk (2015)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityPhillips (2013)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31000
...[8] As evidence of this error, Respondent points to the Panel's findings, which were cited to support its award of punitive damage. According to Respondent, that evidence also supports a finding of negligence, fraud, and alter ego. The Panel does not mention those claims and instead cites to Florida Statutes § 768.737, which requires an arbitrator to provide her basis for the granting of punitive damages....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityCipoletti (2011)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5526, 2003 WL 1733688
...ports the award. Respondents further argue that Petitioner has not established that the arbitrators were subjectively aware of the proper legal standard, and disregarded it in awarding punitive damages. Respondents further argue that Florida Statute 768.737 became effective after the last transaction in this *1259 case in August, 1999, it does not apply to this case, and it was not cited to the Panel before the award was rendered....
