SHARON SACHS, APPELLANT,
v.
MIDWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sharon Sachs appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing her emotional distress claim against an apartment complex owner and insurance company following a burglary. The court affirmed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim but reversed the transfer to county court, finding that the court lacked sufficient information about the jewelry's current value and had not ruled on a $25,000 punitive damages claim.
The court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the emotional distress claim because Sachs failed to allege conduct supporting such a claim. However, the court reversed the transfer to county court because the trial court had not ruled on the $25,000 punitive damages claim and the record did not establish the current value of the jewelry items, which could exceed the original purchase price.
[1] A claim for emotional distress requires allegations of conduct sufficient to support such a claim.
[2] A trial court errs in transferring a cause to county court when a claim for punitive damages remains unresolved.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree with the lower court's disposition of the claim for emotional distress because Ms. Sachs did not allege such conduct on the part of the defendants as would support such a claim.”
Establishes the basis for affirming the summary judgment dismissal of the emotional distress claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Sachs' apartment was burglarized, resulting in the loss of nineteen jewelry items. She sued the apartment complex owner (Midway Development Cor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant-apartment complex owner and transferring the remainder of the cause to the county court has come on for review by this court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Sharon Sachs, who suffered the loss of some nineteen items of jewelry when her apartment was burglarized, sued the apartment complex owner [Midway Development Corporation], its liability insurance carrier [American Mutual Insurance Company], and others.1 She alleged that the owner breached its contract or was negligent in failing to provide adequate security and that this failure resulted in the loss of her jewelry and caused her severe emotional distress. She claimed actual damages in excess of $2,500, with a particular claim for punitive damages in the amount of $25,000.
In ruling on various motions, the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the apartment complex owner on the claim for emotional distress, reserved ruling on the punitive damages question, and transferred the remainder of the cause to county court, apparently due to lack of jurisdictional amount.
We agree with the lower court’s disposition of the claim for emotional distress because Ms. Sachs did not allege such conduct on the part of the defendants as would support such a claim. Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
We find, however, that the trial court improperly transferred the cause to the county court. First, the trial court did not rule on the punitive damages which left unresolved a claim for $25,000. Secondly, the discovery available to the court showed only the cost of the items of jewelry at the time that they were purchased; the record did not disclose the value of the articles at the time they were stolen. Since the various items of jewelry were purchased over a time period that spanned the years 1964 to 1973, the jewelry could conceivably be worth a great deal more than the $900 initially paid. Thus, the trial court erred in transferring the cause to county court on the basis of insufficient jurisdictional amount.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
. The other parties below are not parties to this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…f’d, 68 N.J. 368, 346 A. 2d 76 (1975); Sherman v. Concourse Realty Corp., 47 A.D.2d 134, 365 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1975); see also, Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 331 (1972).4 This holding is in accordance with our recent decision in Sachs v. Midway Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 953 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). It is supported also by several Florida decisions which, in analogous factual and legal settings, likewise hold that one may be liable for failing to protect another from the results of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. Wer…
-
The Green Cos. v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…y measures be provided at the complex, in order to prevent just such a tragic incident as the one involved in this case. [Footnotes omitted.] ‡ sk if: sfc This holding is in accordance with our recent decision in Sachs v. Midway Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 953 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). It is supported also by several Florida decisions which, in analogous factual and legal settings, likewise hold that one may be liable for failing to protect another from the results of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. [Ca…
Authorities Cited
- Gellert v. E. AIR Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)