PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
v.
MONICA OLIVARES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERTO OLIVARES AND RANDOLPH SAPP
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.
This case concerns whether appellate courts can review a trial court's decision to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint to seek punitive damages. The appellate court held that under existing precedent, it cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting such a claim if the trial court followed the correct procedural steps.
No, appellate courts do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial judge's determination that there is a reasonable showing of evidence to support a punitive damage claim, provided the trial court followed the statute's procedural requirements.
[1] Appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, but do n…
[2] Certiorari is not available to review a trial court's determination that there is a reasonable showing by evidence to support a claim for punitive damages.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72.”
This quote establishes the limits of appellate review regarding punitive damages claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Publix Supermarkets and Raymond Sapp sought certiorari review of a trial court order that granted the plaintiff's motion to amend a wrongf…
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 Showing By Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Alberto Olivares.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Publix Supermarkets and Raymond Sapp, both seek certiorari review of an order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend to seek punitive damages in this wrongful death cause of action. Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2018), allows for the amendment of a civil action to state a claim for punitive damages when “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.” Petitioners contend that the evidence presented was insufficient to make a “reasonable showing by evidence” that punitive damages may be recovered and that the court failed to explain how its limited findings were sufficient to justify a claim for punitive damages.
In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995), our supreme court held that:
appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Certiorari is not available to review a determination that 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.
In this case, we conclude that the procedural requirements of the statute were followed. See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (requiring three procedural steps: attachment of the proposed amended complaint to the motion to amend; service of the proffer or other evidence to support the punitive damage claim; and an affirmative finding by the trial court that the plaintiff made a reasonable showing by evidence to support a punitive damage claim). As we are bound by Globe, we cannot review the petitioners’ claims addressing the sufficiency of the evidence or the reasonableness of the trial court’s determination.1
The petitions are therefore dismissed.
WARNER, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- TRG Desert INN Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)