ROBUSTIANO PUGA AND MEDMOLD, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Puga and Medmold appealed a jury verdict awarding Suave Shoe damages for tortious interference with business relationships. The court affirmed the verdict, rejecting appellants' argument that the evidence was speculative and failed to establish proximate causation for Suave's losses.
The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that there was ample competent and sufficient evidence to establish tortious interference and proximate causation for Suave's damages, and that assets held in an estate by the entireties are proper evidence of an individual's net worth in determining punitive damages.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's net worth, including assets held in an estate by the entireties, is admissible for the jury's consideration when awarding punitive damages.
[2] A directed verdict is not warranted when there is ample competent and sufficient evidence to establish that a defendant's tortious interference caused the plaintiff subst…
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“There was more than ample competent, sufficient evidence to show that Suave was required to pay substantially more than it recovered in reestablishing the mold shop, plus the additional losses as profits on contracts already entered into that they were unable to complete because of the tortious interference of the appellants.”
Establishes that proximate causation was adequately proven and that damages were sufficiently supported by evidence, rejecting the directed verdict argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuave Shoe established an expensive in-house mold shop in its manufacturing facility, staffed with expert craftsmen and employing 12-15 people. The in…
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 Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Following the opinions and decisions of this court reported in Puga, v. Suave Shoe Corporation, 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Suave Shoe Corporation v. Fernandez, 390 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the matter was presented to a jury on Suave’s claim for tortious interference with a business relationship. This resulted in a verdict adverse to the appellants for compensatory and punitive damages. This appeal ensued.
The appellants contended that they were entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence was speculative and that the evidence failed to demonstrate that the appellant’s activities were the proximate cause of any loss. We disagree and affirm.
The plaintiff’s evidence clearly established that at great expense they established within their shoe manufacturing concern an in-house “mold shop”. This permitted them to make their products without contracting for mold services with third parties. The shop was established by the plaintiff going to Europe and acquiring an expert craftsman and then through him developing a mold shop which ultimately employed from twelve to fifteen people with a capacity to service the plaintiff’s business. The nature of the mold shop was such that the principal employees were required to execute noncompetitive agreements which were the subject matters of the earlier cases.
The processes and methods of operation were secretive; there were only five or six such facilities in the entire world. The individual appellant after having a disagreement with Suave left its employment and set upon a designated course to take the entire mold shop from Suave and move it to a corporation he formed, to wit, the corporate appellant. As a result of this activity, the principal craftsmen and the entire mold shop after receiving their Christmas bonuses departed Suave and set up operation for the appellant corporation. Suave was then required to start over and reestablish its mold shop. There was more than -ample competent, sufficient evidence to show that Suave was required to pay substantially more than it recovered in reestablishing the mold shop, plus the additional losses as profits on contracts already entered into that they were unable to complete because of the tortious interference of the appellants. Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Adams v. Dreyfus Interstate Development Corporation, 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corporation, 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); American Republic Insurance Company v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Company, 470 F. 2d 820 (9th Cir.1972). As to the award of punitive damages, the individual appellant contends that the jury should not have been permitted to consider assets held in an estate by the entireties. We do not agree. This is but evidence of the net worth of the individual appellant. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1979); Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Therefore the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984). This court has upheld jury awards of punitive damages in actions for interference with an advantageous business relationship under appropriate circumstances. Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 427 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Scussel; Susman v. Schuyler, 328 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The evidence established that Landry had nothing to gain by interfering with the negotiations between Hornstein and Moreno. Thus, there was support for a jury finding…
-
Platte' v. Whitney Realty Co., Inc., 538 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…of punitive damages. Ault v. Lohr, 538 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1989) (Punitive damages may be recovered where the factfinder has found a breach of duty but the plaintiff was unable to prove compensatory or actual damages.) See also Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 427 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Matthews v. DeLand State Bank, 334 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The summary judgment is REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED for trial. SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Ins. Field Servs., Inc. v. White & White Inspection & Audit Serv., Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1979)
- Robustiano Puga & Medmolds, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. G. E. Drywall, Inc., 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Suave Shoe Corp. v. Fernandez, 390 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Adams v. Dreyfus Interstate Dev. Corp., 352 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Richard v. Donahue, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Am. Republic Ins. Co. v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 470 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1972)