WILLIAM KOVACS
v.
TAI WILLIAMS
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 on the record that a claimant has made a reasonable showing by evidence providing a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages recovery when granting a motion to amend to add such a claim under section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes. Merely identifying the theory of recovery without making an affirmative finding about the evidence presented is insufficient.
[1] A trial court must make an affirmative finding on the record that a claimant has made a reasonable showing by evidence providing a reasonable evidentiary basis for puniti…
[2] Merely identifying the legal theory of recovery without making an affirmative finding about the evidence presented does not satisfy the statutory requirement for allowing…
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“the trial court, serving as a gatekeeper, is required to make an affirmative finding that plaintiff has made a 'reasonable showing by evidence,' which would provide a 'reasonable evidentiary basis for recovering such damages' if the motion to amend is granted.”
This establishes the mandatory requirement for trial courts to make affirmative findings about evidence when ruling on motions to amend to add punitive damages claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Kovacs and Tai Williams were involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 4, 2018. On November 6, 2020, Williams moved to amend his complaint t…
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 Motor Vehicle Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
WILLIAM KOVACS,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D21-1099 LT Case No. 2019-CA-039425
TAI WILLIAMS,
Respondent. ________________________________/
Opinion filed December 10, 2021
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Dale Curtis Jacobus, Judge.
Kimberly K. Berman and Holly M. Hamilton, of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner.
Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner William Kovacs seeks certiorari review of an order granting Respondent Tai Williams’ motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages (“Punitive Damages Order”). Petitioner argues that the
1 "[T]o obtain a writ of certiorari, there must exist ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’” Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) (Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). “The prospect of intrusive financial discovery following a trial court’s authorization for an amendment to add a claim for punitive damages is the irremediable injury . . . required for this Court’s exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction.” Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Petitioner’s argument, and our analysis, focuses on the first prong.
After a hearing was held on Respondent’s motion, the trial court entered the Punitive Damages Order without finding that Respondent carried his burden under section 768.72(1). That is, the trial court did not state for the record or in the Punitive Damages Order that Respondent made a “reasonable showing by evidence,” which would provide a “reasonable basis for recovering of such damages.” Because the alleged error is procedural, this Court has jurisdiction to review the Petitioner’s request. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995); Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Croft, 299 So. 3d 588, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). To support the proposition that the trial court was required to make an affirmative finding, either orally or in the Punitive Damages Order, Petitioner cites this Court’s opinion in Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747–48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), as well as opinions from the Second, Third, and Fourth
GRANT PETITION; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
EISNAUGLE, HARRIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Bd. OF Regents OF the State of Fla. v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Birdie M. Varnedore, M.D. v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- CAT CAY Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Jones v. Riley, 302 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. THE Est. of Bill Croft, SR., 299 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)