AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
NORMA JO SMITH AND DGT, 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 properly allows amendment of a counterclaim to assert punitive damages when it complies with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, and the respondents proffer sufficient evidence to support the claim after a hearing.
[1] In a certiorari proceeding reviewing a trial court's allowance of an amendment to assert punitive damages, the appellate court's review is limited to whether the trial co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Heritage Life Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court's order permitting Norma Jo Smith and DGT, Inc. to amend their coun…
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
November 13, 2018 PER CURIAM.
In this certiorari proceeding, Petitioner seeks review of the order allowing Respondents to amend their counterclaim against Petitioner to assert a claim for punitive damages. The scope of our review is limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements in section 768.72, Florida Statutes; we do not have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim. See Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla. 1996); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995); Monroe Health Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Here, the trial court complied with the applicable procedural requirements. Respondents proffered evidence to support their punitive damage claim, and after a hearing, the trial court entered a thorough order finding the proffer to be sufficient to support the claim. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Christopher M. Cobb and Kayla A. Haines of Jimerson & Cobb, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner. Alexander D. Brown and Adam S. Goldman of The Concept Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Respondents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…he sufficiency of the evidence.” KIS Grp., LLC v. Moquin, 263 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Tilton, 198 So. 3d at 910); see also Melendez v. Eversole, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D491 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 18, 2019); Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 263 So. 3d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (both citing Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So. 2d at 520). Here, the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of the statute. Respondents proffered evidence to support their punitive damages claim and, after a hear…
-
Melendez v. Eversole, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Simeon, Inc. v. COX, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996)
- Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. The Est. OF Gustl J. Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)