YELLOWFIN YACHTS, LLC, ETC.
v.
CARL AUSTIN ROSEN
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.
When reviewing a motion for leave to add a punitive damages claim under Florida Statute § 768.72(1), the trial court must consider the claimant's proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the claimant and need not weigh competing evidence or act as a fact-finder.
[1] In reviewing a motion for leave to add a punitive damages claim under Florida Statute § 768.72(1), the trial court must consider the claimant's proffered evidence in the…
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 intelligence“The trial court does not act as a fact-finder in a proceeding under section 768.72(1). It must not weigh the claimant's evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter.”
Court explaining the proper standard for reviewing punitive damages motions under Florida law
Rosen purchased a new fishing boat from Yellowfin Yachts and alleged that a Yellowfin employee grounded the boat on a sandbar during a sea trial, caus…
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 Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fdutpa) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 26, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1665 Lower Tribunal No. 24-4493-CA-01
Yellowfin Yachts, LLC, etc., Appellant,
vs.
Carl Austin Rosen, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole and Francesca M. Stein, for appellant.
The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., and Leslie B. Rothenberg and Angelica L. Novick, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
SCALES, C.J.
Appellant and defendant below Yellowfin Yachts, LLC appeals the trial court's non-final order granting appellee and plaintiff below Carl Austin Rosen's motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(G).
Rosen asserts fraudulent misrepresentation and FDUTPA¹ claims against Yellowfin Yachts. After conducting discovery, Rosen filed his motion seeking to add a claim for punitive damages, alleging that Yellowfin Yachts engaged in "intentional misconduct" and “gross negligence.”2
Rosen purchased a new fishing boat from Yellowfin Yachts. In support of his motion, Rosen proffered record evidence that Yellowfin Yachts deliberately concealed facts that, during a sea trial of the vessel – conducted as part of the manufacturing process a Yellowfin Yachts employee grounded Rosen's boat on a sandbar, allegedly causing significant damage
to the vessel. Regarding his FDUTPA claim, Rosen's proffer consisted of evidence allegedly showing that Yellowfin Yachts made inadequate repairs to the vessel after its grounding, delivered an unfit vessel to Rosen, and demanded full payment of the balance due under allegedly false pretenses.
While Yellowfin Yachts made a competing evidentiary proffer, the trial court, in adjudicating Rosen's motion, was correct to rely exclusively upon Rosen's evidentiary proffer. Perlmutter v. Fed. Ins. Co., 434 So 3d 681, 689 (Fla. 2026) (“The trial court does not act as a fact-finder in a proceeding under section 768.72(1). It must not weigh the claimant's evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter. In conducting its review, the trial court must 'consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.' Hosp. Specialists, P.A. v. Deen, 373 So. 3d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Of course, the allegations contained in the claimant's proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence – the whole point of a proceeding under section 768.72(1) is to determine whether the claimant can show reasonable evidentiary support for those allegations.").
Viewed in a light most favorable to Rosen, his proffered evidence provided reasonable evidentiary support for his punitive damages claim. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Invs. Unlimited, Inc. v. Kathreen Tummarello, 373 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)