WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE KORDON AND LEONA KORDON, HIS WIFE, 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.
Wal-Mart sought certiorari review of orders denying its motion to strike a punitive damages claim and compelling discovery of financial information in a defamation suit brought by a former employee. The court granted the writ, finding the record insufficient to support punitive damages and quashing both orders.
The court held that the record was insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages and that the trial court erred in denying Wal-Mart's motion to strike. The orders denying the motion to strike and compelling financial discovery were quashed.
[1] A party seeking punitive damages must demonstrate "willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct."
[2] To hold a corporate employer vicariously liable for punitive damages, there must be some fault on the employer's part beyond the employee's willful and wanton misconduct.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To support a claim of punitive damages, a party must commit 'willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct.'”
Establishes the legal standard required for 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 intelligenceGeorge Kordon was employed by Wal-Mart and was terminated after being observed consuming store merchandise. Kordon filed suit for defamation based on …
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 Defamation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., seeks certiorari review of an order denying its motion to strike a claim for punitive damages and an order compelling discovery of financial worth information. We have jurisdiction. See Manor Care of Fla., Inc. v. Olt, 620 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Beverly Enters. - Fla., Inc. v. Estate of Maggiacomo, 651 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But see Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 643 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (certifying conflict on whether certiorari is appropriate to review orders related to punitive damages claims), review granted, 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Because the complaint and evidence do not establish a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages, we grant the writ and quash the orders under review.
George Kordon was employed by Wal-Mart and was fired after he was observed consuming store merchandise. He filed suit against Wal-Mart for defamation based on comments allegedly made by Wal-Mart employees regarding his termination. In his second-amended complaint, filed with leave of court, Kordon added a claim for punitive damages. Wal-Mart moved to strike the punitive damages claim, arguing that it was not supported by the evidence. The trial court denied the motion to strike and granted Kordon’s motion to compel Wal-Mart to produce a statement of net worth, including a list of all assets and liabilities. Wal-Mart timely filed petitions for certiorari as to both orders.
To support a claim of punitive damages, a party must commit “willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct.” Key West Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). To hold a corporate employer vicariously liable for punitive damages, there must be some fault on the employer’s part in addition to the willful and wanton employee misconduct. Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981). We have examined the record and conclude that it is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari, quash the subject order, and direct the trial court to strike the punitive damages claim. Because the financial information is relevant only to the claim for punitive damages, the order compelling disclosure is also quashed. Our ruling is without prejudice to subsequent amendment of this claim and financial worth discovery if Kordon presents factual allegations and produces new evidence sufficient to sustain a claim of punitive damages.
Certiorari is granted and the matter remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…. 4th DCA 1998)(revers-ing permanent alimony award where, in the absence of sufficient factual findings concerning the statutory factors, it was impossible for the court to assess the reasonableness of the permanent alimony award); Medlin v. Medlin, 656 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(reversing award of lump sum alimony where judgment considers some but not all of the factors listed under 61.08(2)); Kennedy, 622 So. 2d at 1033 (holding that the trial court erred in its application of the law when it failed to…
-
Kordon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 666 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1996)…WELLS, Justice. We have for review Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kordon, 656 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in which the district court addressed the same question we answered in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In accordance with our decision in Globe Newspa…
Authorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- KEY W. Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dinny Doherty, 619 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. The Est. OF Margaret Maggiacomo, 651 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 643 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Manor Care OF Fla., Inc. v. OLT, 620 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)