SUNRISE OLDS-TOYOTA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT A. MONROE, RESPONDENT
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.
Sunrise Olds-Toyota sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss a punitive damages claim in an amended complaint. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that the complaint failed to adequately allege facts supporting punitive damages liability against the corporation.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim because the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for punitive damages. The complaint did not clearly allege that the employer corporation, rather than a mere employee, was at fault, which is required under the doctrine of respondeat superior for vicarious punitive damages liability.
[1] A claim for punitive damages may be reviewed by certiorari when its improper inclusion could lead to an irreparable injury by requiring an inquiry into a defendant's net…
[2] A punitive damages claim may be stricken when the underlying complaint does not support such an action, particularly in cases of breach of contract.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“before an employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior, there must be some fault on his part since punitive damages are imposed only as punishment of the defendant and as a deterrent to others”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that an employer must have personal fault to be liable for punitive damages, not merely an employee's fault
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Monroe filed an amended complaint against Sunrise Olds-Toyota that included a claim for punitive damages. The complaint alleged gross negli…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
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 worth, an otherwise private matter, the trial court's failure to strike an invalid punitive damages claim was a departure from the essential requirements of law giving rise to an irreparable injury. We further held that the trial court erred in failing to strike a punitive damages claim for an alleged breach of contract where the complaint did not support a punitive damages action.
We conclude that this case is similar to Jaminot and that the trial court erred in not dismissing the punitive damages claim in respondent’s amended complaint.
Under the rule established in Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981), before an employer may be held vicariously liable for punitive damages under the doctrine of respon-deat superior, there must be some fault on his part since punitive damages are imposed only as punishment of the defendant and as a deterrent to others. The supreme court explained that it is not legally significant whether an employer is a natural person or a corporation. Any intentional conduct attributed to a corporation must be committed by an officer, agent or employee of the corporation. Here, the complaint is vague as to what member or members of the corporation were grossly negligent and in what capacity they acted for the corporation. Since the alleged facts do not make it clear that the employer as opposed to some mere employee was at fault, the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for punitive damages. Cf. Willis v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Writ of Certiorari GRANTED and the order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is QUASHED as to the punitive damages claim.
COWART, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
SHARP, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Jaimot v. Media Leasing Corp., 457 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The denial of a motion to strike a punitive damage claim or count is not one of the kinds of non-final order which we have jurisdiction to review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. And I do not think the error (if if exists in fact) is sufficient to invoke our discretionary certiorari jurisdiction. The denial of a protective order to discover financial information in such a case may properly invoke our certiorari jurisdiction, however. Solodky v. Wilson, 474 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…ustice. We have for review the decision of the First District in Martin-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 a…
-
Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995)…der the Bankers managing-agent rule. We reject Sehropp’s contention that there is a third theory of general punitive damages liability for a corporate employer. A corporation can act only through its agents. See Sunrise Olds-Toyota, Inc. v. Monroe, 476 So. 2d 240, 240-41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“Any intentional conduct attributed to a corporation must be committed by an officer, agent, or employee of the corporation.”), disapproved on other grounds, Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). If…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marilee Kelley, 481 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…of the circuit court denying a motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint, including a claim for compensatory and punitive damages. Respondents have failed to reply although ordered to do so by this court. In Sunrise Olds-Toyota, Inc. v. Monroe, 476 So. 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.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Willis v. Clay L. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Jaimot v. Media Leasing Corp., 457 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Solodky v. Wilson, 474 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)