UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
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 make an affirmative finding that a plaintiff has made a reasonable showing by evidence of a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages before granting a motion to amend to add a punitive damages claim.
[1] A circuit court order granting a motion to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim must make an affirmative finding that the plaintiff made a reasonable showing…
[2] Florida Statute § 768.72 creates a legal right in a party not to be subjected to financial worth discovery until the trial court makes an affirmative finding of a reasona…
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“section 768.72, Florida Statutes creates 'a positive legal right in a party not to be subjected to financial worth discovery until the trial court has first made an affirmative finding that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the punitive damages claim to go to the jury'”
The court explained the statutory requirement underlying the decision.
United Automobile Insurance Company sought to amend its complaint to add a punitive damages claim against Riverside Medical Associates, Inc. The circu…
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 Financial Worth Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry A. Seiden of Seiden Law, Delray Beach, for respondent Riverside Medical Associates, Inc., a/a/o Normadel Burke.
PER CURIAM. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari. The circuit court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim fails to make “an affirmative finding that the plaintiff made a ‘reasonable showing by evidence,’ which would provide a ‘reasonable evidentiary basis for recovering such damages. . . .’” Leinberger v. Magee, 226 So. 3d 899, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)); see also Petri Positive Pest Control, Inc. v. CCM Condo. Assoc., Inc., 174 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc) (stating that section 768.72, Florida Statutes creates “a positive legal right in a party not to be subjected to financial worth discovery until the trial court has first made an affirmative finding that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the punitive damages claim to go to the jury”).
We quash the order under review which rules that the “motion is granted” and remand to the circuit court “to enter its affirmative findings or, if necessary, hold further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Petri Positive, 174 So. 3d at 1122. WARNER, GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Birdie M. Varnedore, M.D. v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Petri Positive Pest Control, Inc. v. CCM Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 174 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Leinberger v. Magee, 226 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)