JUNE KEENE STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN F. ROHDE, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD F. ROHDE, DECEASED, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Stephens appeals a trial court order striking her punitive damages claim against the executor of a deceased tortfeasor's estate. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that punitive damages claims survive the death of a tortfeasor and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages only.
Punitive damages claims survive the death of a tortfeasor. A new trial on the issue of punitive damages need not include retrial of compensatory damages when no error is alleged in the compensatory damages trial and the award is not challenged.
[1] A claim for punitive damages survives the death of the tortfeasor.
[2] Punitive damages serve to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from committing similar offenses.
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“a claim for punitive damages survives the death of the tortfeasor”
Establishes the core holding that punitive damages claims are not extinguished by the tortfeasor's death, citing Johns-Manville.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephens was injured in a collision with an automobile driven by Ronald Rohde. Rohde subsequently died from causes unrelated to the accident, and his …
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 Deterrence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Stephens appeals from an order striking her claim for punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor. We reverse, and remand for a new trial on punitive damages only.
Stephens was injured in a collision with an automobile driven by Ronald Rohde. Rohde subsequently died of causes unrelated to the accident and his executor was substituted as a defendant in Stephens’ suit for compensatory and punitive damages. The punitive damages claim was stricken before trial on motion by Rohde, the trial court finding that punitive damages may not be recovered from a deceased tortfeasor. However, that conclusion is contrary to the Florida law on this issue.
In Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich, 226 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1969), the Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that a punitive damages claim survives regardless of the death, of the tortfeasor. The principle was later explicitly established in Johnson v. Rines-mith, 238 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), relying on Atlas. Finally, this court, in Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), cited Johnson for the proposition that “a claim for punitive damages survives the death of the tortfeasor.” Johns-Manville at 252.
The trial court relied on Rohde’s citation to In the Matter of GAC Corp., 681 F. 2d 1295 (11th Cir.1982), in holding to the contrary. However, the primary holding of GAC was that allowing recovery of punitive damages against deceased tortfeasors was inappropriate in the bankruptcy context because such claims punished innocent creditors by diminishing the estate. The court added in a footnote that “numerous” cases had similarly held that punitive damages cannot be recovered from a deceased tortfeasor because neither punishment nor deterrence can be accomplished. However, none of the cases cited for this proposition issued from a Florida court. Therefore, GAC is not controlling.
Florida courts have clearly held that, as well as punishing the wrongdoer, punitive damages serve as a warning and example to deter others from committing similar offenses. We agree. Further, if a potential tortfeasor realizes that his estate is liable to diminishment by punitive damages awards, as is his own purse while he lives, this provides an additional incentive to avoid tortious conduct.
Stephens proceeds to argue that if the punitive damages claim is reinstated, any new trial should be on compensatory damages as well. She alleges no error in the trial on compensatory damages only, nor is the amount of the $30,000 award challenged. Rather, she claims that compensatory and punitive damages are so intertwined as to require a new trial as to both. We disagree.
In Banker’s Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1985), the plaintiff was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court ordered a new trial on both and the District Court reversed. The Supreme Court approved that action as to compensatory damages but quashed the portion of the opinion dealing with punitive damages, finding that there is no rule of law that punitive damages must bear some reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. The case was remanded with directions to grant a new trial “on the issue of whether punitive damages should be imposed and, if so, the amount thereof.” Banker’s at 533.
In Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Ocha, 472 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the court relied on Banker’s to reinstate a punitive damages claim and remand for a new trial on punitive damages only, despite a contention that retrial of punitive damages required retrial of compensatory damages. Hartford at 1342.
Based on the foregoing authority, we reverse the trial court’s action in striking Stephens’ punitive damages claim and remand for a new trial on the issue of whether such damages should be imposed and, if so, the amount thereof.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016)…orp., 889 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence during the punitive damages portion of the trial and remanding for a new trial on the amount of punitive damages only); Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (rejecting explicitly the defendant’s argument that if the punitive damages demand was reinstated, any new trial should be on both compensatory damages and punitive damages because the two are so intertwined as to require a…
-
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…remand for a new trial on all claims. I disagree. In my view, on remand, the new trial should be limited to the issue of punitive damages. There is ample authority for allowing a new trial limited to the issue of punitive damages. Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (disagreeing with a claim that compensatory damages and punitive damages were so intertwined as to require a new trial on both; thus, reversing the trial court’s action in striking the appellant’s punitive damages claim and…
-
Lohr v. Hattie Mae Byrd, 522 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1988)…sor. Id. at 688 (emphasis supplied). Thus, it is clear that we previously spoke on the issue before us, albeit in dictum. In addition to the court below, two other district courts of appeal have also squarely ruled the same way. Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986); Johnson v. Rinesmith, 238 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 241 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1970). The majority of other jurisdictions do not permit the recovery of punitive damages upon…1 / 2
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
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Atlas Props., Inc. v. Didich, 226 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1969)
- Royce D. Johnson v. Rinesmith, 238 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- In re GAC Corp. v. Callahan, 681 F.2d 1295 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Ocha, 472 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)