G. E. ADAMS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF POLK COUNTY, 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.
Court affirmed summary judgment denying punitive damages in wrongful repossession case, holding that creditor cannot be liable for punitive damages based on third-party contractor's actions absent evidence of creditor's foreseeable fault.
A creditor cannot be held liable for punitive damages for damage caused by a third-party contractor during repossession and disassembly of collateral absent evidence that the creditor was guilty of fault that foreseeably contributed to the damages.
[1] A creditor is not liable for punitive damages for damage to collateral caused by a third-party contractor hired for repossession absent evidence that the creditor was gui…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff debtor lost value on a logging machine used as collateral when the creditor hired a third party to disassemble and remove it for sale, alleg…
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 Wrongful Repossession cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the partial final summary judgment denying appellant, plaintiff below, the right to punitive damages in this suit for wrongful repossession by a creditor of collateral security, a logging machine. (All of the remaining portions of the lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed.)
Plaintiff claimed damages arising out of the loss in value of the security at its sale by the creditor due to alleged damage caused to the machine when it was repossessed and disassembled preparatory to being removed from the debtor’s premises for transportation to another location for sale. The disassembly was accomplished by a third party hired by the creditor. Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, there was no.evidence that the creditor in hiring that third party was guilty of some fault which fore-seeably contributed to plaintiff’s damages so as to make the creditor liable in punitive damages for wrongs done by that third party. See Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981).
Even if there had been evidence of the above referenced type, there was no evidence that the acts of the third party were of a nature, such as those described in White Construction Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984), to justify an award of punitive damages.
Affirmed.
OTT, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…to award vicarious punitive damages against Crown. We disagree. Even if the evidence would have supported such a damage recovery, which is not at all clear, see Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981); Adams v. Barnett Bank, 469 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), no jury instruction regarding vicarious punitive damages was requested. See Geary v. Starr, 418 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Actually, the main thrust of this contention may be to provide for vicarious punitive damages at the…
Authorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)