IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES AND STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CONTRACT AND BUSINESS CASES - JOINT REPORT NO. 19-01
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.
The Court authorized the modified verdict form 451.14 for publication and use, with a revision to question one to more closely track instruction 451.4 regarding whether a fiduciary relationship was established as a factual matter.
[1] A model verdict form for breach of fiduciary duty claims must distinguish between the factual question of whether a fiduciary relationship was established, which is for t…
[2] In a breach of fiduciary duty verdict form, the first question should address whether the claimant placed trust in the defendant to protect specified interests and the de…
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 intelligence“The existence, vel non, of a duty is a question of law and is appropriate for an appellate court to review. . . . [Whether] a fiduciary relationship was formed [is a] determination[] . . . for the finder of fact to make at trial.”
This establishes the distinction between the legal question of duty (appellate) and the factual question of relationship formation (jury), which justified the Court's modification to the verdict form.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Supreme Court Committees on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases and Contract and Business Cases submitted a proposed verdict form for breach…
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 Legal Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC19-185 ____________
IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES AND
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CONTRACT AND BUSINESS
CASES—JOINT REPORT NO. 19-01.
August 29, 2019
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases and the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases (Committees) have submitted a proposed new model verdict form to be included in section 451 of their respective sets of standard jury instructions pertaining to Fiduciary Duty and ask that the Court authorize the proposed verdict form for publication and use. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The Committees propose new verdict form 451.14 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Fiduciary Duty) to accompany instructions 451.4 (Existence of Fiduciary Duty Disputed) and 451.5 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty). The Committees
published the proposed verdict form in the September1, 2018, issue of The Florida Bar News. No comments were received. Having considered the Committees’ joint report and joint supplemental report, we modify the proposed verdict form and authorize the modified form for publication and use. The Court modifies question one of the Committees’ proposed verdict form to more closely track instruction 451.4 (Existence of Fiduciary Duty Disputed), which instructs the jury regarding the factual question of whether a fiduciary relationship has been established. See Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348, 354 nn.7, 9 (Fla. 2002) (“The existence, vel non, of a duty is a question of law and is appropriate for an appellate court to review. . . . [Whether] a fiduciary relationship was formed [is a] determination[] . . . for the finder of fact to make at trial.”). Having considered the Committees’ reports, the Court authorizes the verdict form, as modified and as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, for publication and use. New language is indicated by underlining. In authorizing the publication and use of this verdict form, the Court expresses no opinion on its correctness and reminds all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting an additional or alternative verdict form nor contesting the legal correctness of the verdict form. The Court further cautions all interested parties that any Notes on Use associated with the proposed verdict form reflect only the opinion of the
Committees and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The verdict form as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final. It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions — Civil Cases and Contract and Business Cases
Honorable Paul Lee Huey, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases, Tampa, Florida; Laura K. Whitmore, Chair, Tampa, Florida, and Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Vice Chair and Subcommittee Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Miami, Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, Mikalla Andies Davis and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Liaisons, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
APPENDIX
FORM 451.14 MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY
We, the jury, return the following verdict: