PEDRO JAIMOT AND ANGEL SANCHEZ, PETITIONERS,
v.
MEDIA LEASING CORP., D/B/A HOLIDAY RENT-A-CAR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated fraud as part of a breach of contract claim, and that the punitive damages claim was an interlocutory matter not subject to immediate review.
Appellees alleged appellants misrepresented their intent to fulfill contractual obligations, knowing appellees would rely on these statements to their…
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 Petition For Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The third party defendants herein, Jaimot and Sanchez, have petitioned for certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of their motion to strike a punitive damage claim against them for an alleged breach of contract. Fulminating language in a complaint characterizing a contract breach as “willful, wanton, outrageous, malicious,” ad nauseum does not establish an independent tort that will support a punitive damage action. Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982), Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976), Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Since a punitive damage claim can serve as the basis for an inquiry into a defendant’s net worth, an otherwise private matter, the trial court’s failure to strike the invalid punitive damage claim is a departure from essential requirements of law giving rise to an irreparable injury. Accordingly, we grant certiorari review and quash the order of the trial court in that regard.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
SHARP, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent because I think the complaint in this case sufficiently states misrepresentation or fraud as a component of the breach of contract action. In Count I, appellees alleged that appellants represented they would fulfill appellee’s obligations to Ford Motor Credit Company, that they knew appellees would rely thereon to their detriment, and that the representations were false, made in bad faith, and/or that their conduct was grossly negligent. In my view these allegations are indistinguishable from those in Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla.1957), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held punitive damages would lie for the gross neglect of a contractual duty owed to another party sufficient to constitute an independent tort. See also Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982).
Further, the failure of the trial court to strike the punitive damage claim is clearly an interlocutory matter, which we have no jurisdiction to review under the non-final appeal rules. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130. Nor should we review it as a petition for common law writ of certiorari. Appeal from the final order would be an adequate remedy.1 Speculation about possible invasive discovery concerning appellants’ finances, as yet unsought, is not in my view a sufficient showing of irreparable harm to justify granting common law certiorari in this case. I would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
. See Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541 (1942); Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…n-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 488 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), certified to be in direct conflict with the decisions of the Fifth District in Sunrise Olds-Toyota, Inc. v. Monroe, 476 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and Jaimot v. Media Leasing Corp., 457 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In these cases, the district courts reached conflicting decisions as to whether it is appropriate for an appellate court to review by certiorari an interlocutory order denyin…
-
Sunrise Olds-Toyota, Inc. v. Monroe, 476 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…e. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the respondent’s amended complaint. The amended complaint included a claim- for punitive damages. In Jaimot v. Media Leasing Corp., 457 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), we granted certiorari review and quashed a trial court order denying a motion to strike a punitive damage claim. This court reasoned that since a punitive claim could serve as the basis for an inquiry into a defendant’s net wort…1 / 2
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marilee Kelley, 481 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this, court granted a petition for certiorari and quashed an order denying a motion to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a cause of action for punitive damages. The court cited Jaimot v. Media Leasing Corp., 457 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) which held that since a claim for punitive damages could serve as a basis for a net worth inquiry, the trial court’s failure to strike an invalid punitive damages claim was a departure from the essential requirements of law, givi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)
- Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1976)
- Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
- Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)