FREDERICK MAYER AND GLORIA MAYER, PETITIONERS,
v.
RICHARD FRANK AND BRENDA FRANK, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order denying petitioners' motion to strike a punitive damages claim, holding that Florida Statute Section 768.72 requires prior judicial authorization before a punitive damages claim can be included in a complaint.
No. A complaint that includes a punitive damages claim without prior court authorization violates Section 768.72 and must be dismissed or struck. The statute requires a factual showing and judicial authorization before any punitive damages claim may be asserted, and permitting a party to file a complaint containing such a claim without prior approval contravenes the statute.
[1] A claim for punitive damages is impermissible unless a reasonable showing is made that would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.
[2] A trial court order denying a motion to strike a punitive damages claim asserted without prior authorization is reviewable by certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing ... which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for prior authorization of 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 intelligenceRespondents filed a complaint that included a punitive damages claim without first obtaining the prior showing and court authorization required by Flo…
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
PER CURIAM.
We grant this petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court order denying Petitioners’ motion to strike a punitive damages claim.
Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, provides that “... no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing ... which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” Additionally, upon such a showing, a claimant may then “move to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages....”
Recently, in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995), the supreme court recognized that certiorari review is appropriate to determine whether the trial court has conducted the evidentiary hearing required by section 768.72 prior to authorizing a punitive damages claim, approving this court’s opinion in Sports Products, Inc. v. Estate of Inalien, 658 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 21, 1994), rev. dismissed, No. 84,988, 659 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. June 7, 1995).
Here, Respondents filed a complaint that, in contravention of the plain proscription of the statute, included a punitive damages claim without the prior showing required by law. According to Respondents, the denial of the motion to strike was based on the allegations in, admissions in, and attachments to, the pleadings. Petitioners dispute this and claim that the denial resulted from counsel’s failing to attend the hearing, conducted without any review of the facts. In either event, we conclude that the order must be quashed as it is undisputed that the effect of the trial court order is to leave in place a punitive damages demand asserted without prior trial court authorization.
In Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1994), this court quashed an order denying a motion to strike a punitive damages claim. In that case, no evidentiary hearing was held on the motion to strike, but the court denied the motion to strike and ordered the plaintiff to demonstrate the factual basis for the claim at a hearing to be scheduled within ninety days of the order denying the motion. Id. at 107-08.
In Kraft, this court held that a complaint that included a claim for punitive damages, where the plaintiff had not first sought and obtained leave of court to seek such damages, was an unauthorized pleading and violated the statute. It was the intent of the legislature that a plaintiff not be even exposed to a claim for punitive damages unless a judge had first determined that a factual basis for such damages exists. Permitting a plaintiff to file an initial complaint that contains a punitive damage claim “would stand the statute on its head.” Kraft, 635 So. 2d at 110. The court concluded:
In short, we think that the first three sentences of this statute [quoted above] read together quite plainly require the dismissal or striking of unauthorized punitive damages claims.
Id. We can discern no reason for not applying the Kraft reasoning to any instance in which a party seeks punitive damages without first complying with the statute.
We recognize that in many instances enforcement of the statute in this manner places form over substance, considering the likelihood that a court will subsequently authorize amendment of the pleadings to claim punitive damages. However, effective enforcement of the statute, which was designed to reduce injuries resulting from unsupportable punitive damage claims, mandates such treatment.
STONE, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horizons Rehab., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 810 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ntentional torts and are similarly barred by the releases. The court struck the punitive damages claim in Count XIV because it found that such claims are not permitted without pri- or trial court authorization, pursuant to § 768.72.5 Mayer v. Frank, 659 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Sanchez v. Degoria, 733 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We find no error with these rulings. The trial court dismissed the three counts (VII,…1 / 2
-
WFTV, Inc. v. Hinn, 705 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…tisement after being requested to stop. Evidence or argument presented at the hearing on the motion to strike would not satisfy the procedural requirements of section 768.72, as construed by the supreme court in Simeon, Inc. See also Mayer v. Frank, 659 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (procedure in section 768.72 must be strictly enforced, although in some cases the result might elevate form over substance). Even if the pleadings were sufficient to show a reasonable basis for punitive damages, the trial court…
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Noordhoek, 672 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. “It was the intent of the legislature that a plaintiff not be even exposed to a claim for punitive damages unless a judge had first determined that a factual basis for such damages exists.” Mayer v. Frank, 659 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court’s desire to carefully evaluate the evidence that forms the basis of the punitive damages claim is understandable. The courts’s decision, however, to postpone making a determination as to whether there was a reaso…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Houston v. State, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Nickerson v. State, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sports Prods. v. Est. OF Marianne Inalien, 658 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)