WOLPER ROSS INGHAM & COMPANY, INC., ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
Y. STEVEN LIEDMA, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court properly permitted discovery of financial information before the plaintiff established a reasonable basis for punitive damages claims. The court held that section 768.72 requires plaintiffs to first demonstrate a reasonable basis for punitive damages before any discovery of financial worth may proceed.
The trial court erred in permitting discovery to proceed on punitive damages claims without first making a finding that a reasonable basis exists for their recovery. Section 768.72 requires plaintiffs to establish such a basis through evidence in the record or proffer before any discovery of financial worth may proceed.
[1] A claim for punitive damages in a civil action requires a reasonable showing by evidence or proffer that a basis exists for recovery before a pleading asserting such dama…
[2] Discovery of financial worth in a civil action shall not proceed until after a pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.
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“No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.”
The controlling statutory language requiring a prerequisite showing before financial discovery in punitive damages cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners (defendants below) sought certiorari to challenge the trial court's order compelling production of financial statements showing liabilitie…
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 Reasonable Basis For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, defendants below, seek a writ of common law certiorari contending that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the respondents’ motion to compel production of certain financial statements reflecting the liabilities and net worth of the petitioners. The discovery relates to the respondents’ claims for punitive damages and, accordingly, is governed by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides as follows:
768.72. Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages.—
In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The claimant may move to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so as [to] allow the claimant discovery of evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.
By its clear terms, the statute requires the respondents to make a showing by proffer or through evidence in the record that some reasonable basis exists to support recovery of punitive damages before the trial court permits a pleading requesting such damages.
The trial court erred in permitting discovery to proceed on the claim for punitive damages without first making a finding that a basis exists for their recovery.1 The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
Certiorari granted; order quashed.
. Respondents' argument that the petitioners "waived" the protection of the statute is not well taken. The supreme court has determined that section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1987), creates substantive rights and that the procedural provisions of the section are intertwined with the definition of those substantive rights. Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So. 2d 1080, 1092 n. 10 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…'s substantive rights by requiring a factual inquiry into whether the necessary statutory predicate for punitive damages exists before a party can be forced to disclose personal financial worth discovery. In Wolper Ross Ingham & Co. Inc. v. Liedman, 544 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), and Will v. Systems Engineering Consultants Inc., 554 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), the court reached the same conclusion. In Wolper Ross the court reviewed an order compelling discovery. In Will the trial court had directed t…
-
KEY W. Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dinny Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…he trial court has first made an affirmative finding that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the punitive damages claim to go to the jury.” Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see Wolper Ross Ingham & Co. v. Liedman, 544 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that party seeking punitive damages is not entitled to financial worth discovery until the party complies with section 768.72). The trial court’s interpretation of section 400.023 also conflicts with well established prin…1 / 2
-
Will v. Sys. Eng'g Consultants, Inc., 554 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…intiff “to make a showing by proffer or through evidence in the record that some reasonable basis exists to support recovery of'punitive damages before the trial court permits a pleading requesting such damages.” Wolper Ross Ingham & Co. v. Liedman, 544 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The conventional summary judgment analysis is inapplicable; rather, the burden to show “a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages” is on the plaintiff, not on the defendant. In order to avoid confusion, it would appear…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Dep't OF Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987)