EUGENE J. STRASSER, M.D., P.A., EUGENE J. STRASSER AND LINDA K. STRASSER, PETITIONERS,
v.
BOSE YALAMANCHI, M.D., P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
A trial court must determine if there is a reasonable basis for punitive damages before allowing a claim to be asserted, and cannot defer this determination until trial.
[1] A trial court must determine that there is a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages before a plaintiff may assert a claim for punitive damages.
[2] A reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant is required to support a punitive damages claim.
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 intelligenceThe trial court permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint to allege punitive damages, but deferred the determination of whether there was a reaso…
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
PARIENTE, Judge.
The trial court permitted respondent (plaintiff) to amend his complaint to allege punitive damages. Rather than determine at that time whether there was a reasonable basis to support a punitive damages claim, the trial court ruled that it would make that determination at the time of trial. By so doing, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.
Before a plaintiff may assert a claim of punitive damages, the trial court must determine that there is a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages. Si-meon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1996). This determination must be based on “a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant.” § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (1995). In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla.1995), our supreme court held that the appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether the procedural requirements of the statute governing the pleading of punitive damages claims has been followed. It is not, however, within our province to determine the sufficiency of the evidentiary showing. Id.
Contrary to petitioners’ (defendants) contention, an evidentiary hearing is not mandated by the statute before a trial court has authority to permit an amendment. Pursuant to section 768.72, a proffer of evidence can support a trial court’s determination. However, the trial court erred when it allowed the amendment but deferred its decision as to whether there was “a reasonable basis for recovery” of punitive damages until trial.
The procedure followed by the trial court was not authorized by section 768.72. Because the trial court did not determine whether there was a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages before allowing the amendment, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order permitting punitive damages and permitting discovery of financial worth information. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Simeon, Inc. v. COX, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996)