GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS CO., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MAYOR'S JEWELERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A MAYOR'S, 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.
Globe Security Systems appealed from a jury verdict awarding both compensatory and punitive damages for breach of a security contract. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed $45,188.21 in compensatory damages for breach but reversed the $135,000 punitive damages award because the jury failed to make a separate finding of compensatory or nominal damages supporting the negligence claim.
The punitive damages award cannot stand because the jury made no finding that Mayor's suffered compensatory or nominal damages beyond those attributable to the breach of contract, and the facts do not support such a conclusion. Where compensatory damages are based on one cause of action and punitive damages on an entirely separate cause of action, an express finding of separate compensatory damages (actual or nominal) must support the punitive damages award.
[1] Punitive damages are not recoverable unless the jury makes an express finding of separate compensatory or nominal damages in support of the punitive damages claim.
[2] A tort is not established for the purpose of awarding punitive damages without a finding of actual or nominal damages, even if liability is found.
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“where an award of compensatory damages is based on one cause of action, and an award of punitive damages is based on an entirely separate cause of action, the award of punitive damages will not stand unless the jury also makes an express finding of separate compensatory damages in support of the punitive damages claim, whether actual or nominal”
States the controlling rule in the Third District requiring separate damages findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlobe Security Systems was hired to provide security services at Mayor's Jewelers specifically to protect against smash-and-grab burglaries. A securit…
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 Exemplary Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mayor’s, a jewelry store, was burglarized after appellant’s security guard, who was assigned to watch the premises, left his post without permission in the early morning hours to spend time with his girlfriend. Appellant was hired specifically to protect against “smash-and-grab” burglaries, the same type of crime which caused the loss in this case. A jury found that Globe breached the contract and awarded compensatory damages of $45,188.21. There is no serious challenge to the breach of contract finding or to the award of actual damages, both of which were firmly established. The main issue raised by this appeal is whether an award of $135,000 in punitive damages is sustainable on the facts. We think not and reverse the punitive damages award.
Mayor’s alleged in its complaint that (1) Globe breached its contract to guard the premises continuously during the hours between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on the night of the burglary, and (2) Globe was “grossly negligent” in that it failed to have a guard present at the premises, failed to effect a method for monitoring its on-duty guard, and employed a guard who might not have been hired if a routine background investigation had been conducted.
By special interrogatory verdict the jury found:
I. VERDICT ON BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM
(_) A. We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, MAYOR’S JEWELERS, and assess its damages at $45,188.21.
II. VERDICT ON NEGLIGENCE CLAIM
(_) A. We, the jury, find for Defendant, GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS. (If you find for GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS on this claim, do not answer B, but date and sign this form and return it to the Clerk).
(_) B. We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, MAYOR’S JEWELERS, and assess punitive damages in the amount of $135,-000.00.
Dated this 4 day of October, 1983.
/s/ Leonard Morgen As Foreman/Forewoman
The jury awarded no additional compensatory damages to support the negligence-based punitive damages award.
The rule in this district is that where an award of compensatory damages is based on one cause of action, and an award of punitive damages is based on an entirely separate cause of action, the award of punitive damages will not stand unless the jury also makes an express finding of separate compensatory damages in support of the punitive damages claim, whether actual or nominal. See Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.1982); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.), 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). The rule derives from the general principle that “exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable in an action of tort unless actual damages are shown....” Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622, 625 (Fla.1977) (citing McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So. 2d 221, 222 (1943)). Unless there is a separate finding of actual or nominal damages — an essential element of the tort — the tort is not established notwithstanding a finding of liability by the jury.1 Because the jury made no finding that Mayor’s suffered compensatory or nominal damages beyond the damages attributable to the breach of contract, and the facts do not support such a conclusion, the award of punitive damages cannot stand.
The award of compensatory damages is AFFIRMED; the punitive damages award is REVERSED.
. As noted by Judge Daniel Pearson writing for the court in Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600, 602 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1982), there is disagreement in the district courts as to whether Lassitter is a restatement of the general rule that actual or nominal damages are required, or whether it intended to relax the rule so as to permit recovery of punitive damages merely on a showing of liability without an award of nominal damages. Favoring the latter interpretation he suggests that a finding of liability is the functional equivalent of a finding of at least nominal damages. See Nales v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 398 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981); Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). That view has not been adopted by this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Sales & Mgmt. Org. LLC v. Lopez, 373 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ement in accordance with motion for directed verdict, as the return of a proper verdict of $0 in damages means ASMO failed to prove damages, an essential element of its breach of fiduciary duty claim.6 Globe Sec. Sys. Co. v. Mayor's Jewelers, Inc., 458 So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“Unless there is a separate finding of actual or nominal damages—an essential element of the tort—the tort is not established notwithstanding a finding of liability by the jury”); see also 55 Fla. Jur 2d Torts 6 We review d…
-
Med. Assocs. OF Am., Inc. v. Richard P. Goodman, DMD, P.A., 504 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…tiff suffered compensatory or nominal damages, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment awarding punitive damages. See Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1976); Globe Sec. Sys. Co. v. Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc., 458 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985); contra Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (failure of jury to assess monetary sum for compensatory damages does not preclude award of punitive damages)…
-
Darwin Ray Boyd and Monica Lynn Boyd v. Oriole Homes Corp., 515 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…perating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1977); Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600, 602-603 & n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), affirmed, Lewis v. Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1982), declined to follow by Globe Security Systems Co. v. Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc., 458 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lassitter v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1976)
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- Lewis v. Barnett Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1982)
- Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Overseas Equip. Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Nales v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Cecil Cronan, 398 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Barnett Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)