MARIE JOSEE TRUQUET
v.
DAVID JOURDAN-TABAC, ET AL.
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's denial of a motion for leave to amend to add a claim for punitive damages is reviewed de novo and will be affirmed where the plaintiff fails to allege conduct rising to the level of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
[1] A trial court's decision on a motion for leave to amend to add a claim for punitive damages is reviewed de novo.
[2] Punitive damages are extraordinary relief reserved for acts and omissions so egregious as to jeopardize the public as a whole, requiring conduct rising to the level of in…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Punitive damages are a form of extraordinary relief for acts and omissions so egregious as to jeopardize not only the particular plaintiff in the lawsuit, but the public as a whole, such that a punishment—not merely compensation—must be imposed to prevent similar conduct in the future.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for punitive damages eligibility
Marie Josee Truquet appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint to add…
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 Punitive Damages Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0958
Lower Tribunal No. 18-7032-CA-01
Marie Josee Truquet,
Appellant,
vs.
David Jourdan Tabac, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.
Lampert Law Firm and Joey M. Lampert and Michael A. Eger (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
Navarro Attorneys at Law and Luis F. Navarro, for appellees.
Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Grove Isle Ass’n v. Lindzon, 350 So. 3d 826, 829 (Fla.
3d DCA 2022) (stating trial court's decision on motion for leave to amend to add claim for punitive damages is reviewed de novo); Monsanto Co. v. Behar, 417 So. 3d 383, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Punitive damages are a form of extraordinary relief for acts and omissions so egregious as to jeopardize not only the particular plaintiff in the lawsuit, but the public as a whole, such that a punishment—not merely compensation—must be imposed to prevent similar conduct in the future.” (quoting BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, 38 So. 3d 874, 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))); Roque v. Swezy, 429 So. 3d 107, 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Punitive damages are a form of extraordinary relief, reserved for sufficiently outrageous or egregious conduct."); McLane Foodservice Inc. v. Wool, 400 So. 3d 757, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (reversing order granting motion for leave to amend to add claim for punitive damages where Appellee's “proffer offers nothing that could rise to the level of intentional misconduct or gross negligence").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Phoenix Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Waterchase Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 350 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- BDO Seidman v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, 38 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Monsanto Co. v. Behar, 417 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Roque v. Swezy, 429 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)