LYNNE NOACK, HARRY NOACK, AND NOACK AND ASSOCIATES INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC.; FLORIDA COMBINED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FLORIDA COMBINED AGENCY, INC.; AND HEALTH OPTIONS, INC.; AFFILIATED INSURANCE OF PENSACOLA, INC.; AND MARK TUBBS, 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.
Petitioners sought certiorari and mandamus review of a trial court's denial of their motion to amend their complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages in a fraud case. The appellate court held that certiorari is unavailable because an adequate remedy exists through plenary appeal, and mandamus is likewise inappropriate because the earlier summary judgment ruling on the fraud claim does not establish the law of the case regarding punitive damages eligibility.
Certiorari review is unavailable for denial of a motion to add punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists through plenary appeal. Mandamus relief is likewise unwarranted for the same reason. The prior appellate decision that material factual issues existed regarding the fraud claim does not establish the law of the case regarding punitive damages entitlement, as that issue was neither expressly nor impliedly resolved in the earlier decision.
[1] Certiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages when an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal.
[2] Mandamus relief is unwarranted when an adequate remedy can be afforded on plenary appeal.
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“certiorari will lie to inquire into the question of whether the trial court followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, in disposing of petitioners' motion, but it may not serve as a vehicle to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's decision that a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages had not been shown.”
Establishes the limited scope of certiorari review available for punitive damages motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Lynne Noack, Harry Noack, and Noack and Associates Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. brought a fraud claim against Blue Cross and Blu…
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 seek certiorari review of an order of the circuit court denying their motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to plead a prayer for punitive damages in connection with their fraud claim.
Pursuant to Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995), certiorari will lie to inquire into the question of whether the trial court followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, in disposing of petitioners’ motion, but it may not serve as a vehicle to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision that a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages had not been shown. Petitioners, however, make no claim that the procedural requirements of section 768.72 were not followed, and in any event, certiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal. See Estate of Esterline v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 845 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Alternatively, petitioners seek mandamus relief to compel the trial court to grant their motion, asserting that its ruling is contrary to the law of the case as established in an earlier appeal in this matter.
However, because an adequate remedy can be afforded on plenary appeal if the trial court did indeed err, mandamus relief is likewise unwarranted. See Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Florida Elections Commission, 795 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Moreover, our conclusion in Noack v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 859 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), that sufficient issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment on petitioners’ fraud claim does not establish the law of the case concerning punitive damages, since that issue was neither expressly nor impliedly resolved in our prior decision. See Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla.2001).
The conventional analysis utilized in resolving a summary judgment motion has no application in the context of a punitive damages determination under section 768.72. See Will v. Systems Engineering Consultants, Inc., 554 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Whether the entitlement to plead a claim for punitive damages has been established must be determined under the procedure and standards set forth in the statute, and our finding in the earlier appeal that respondents failed to establish that there is no material issue of disputed fact concerning the fraud claim is not the equivalent of petitioners establishing a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages. See Potter v. S.A.K. Development Corporation, 678 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari or, alternatively, for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. McDONOUGH, 932 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…n interlocutory orders of the circuit court, we decline to undertake such review since petitioner will have an adequate remedy by way of appeal following the entry of a final order. See generally Noack v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Finally, we deny petitioner’s request that we undertake review of the order granting him leave to proceed as an indigent in the circuit court, again without prejudice to his right to seek review on plenary appeal. See LaMadline…
-
Kis Grp., LLC v. Moquin, 263 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…der. It is axiomatic, then, that the analysis required for a motion for summary judgment cannot be substituted for the analysis required under the statute. The First District’s holding in Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) is instructive. In that case, the petitioners sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court to grant their motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. Id. at 371. The petitioners m…
-
Beck v. Wright, 325 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…86 So. 3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[A]n order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal."); Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[C]ertiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal."); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("If the tr…
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
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Potter v. S.A.K. Dev. Corp., 678 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Will v. Sys. Eng'g Consultants, Inc., 554 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 859 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Wuesthoff Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 795 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Est. OF Walter Edward Esterline v. Avante AT Leesburg, Inc., 845 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)