MARIO ABAD

v.

VENUS LACALAMITA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-11-23

No. 22-0629

Hendon, J., Logue, J., Scales, J., Lopez, J.

353 So. 3d 1217 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022) Positive Treatment

Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order allowing amendment to assert punitive damages, holding that the independent tort rule precludes punitive damages where the gross negligence claim is not independent of the underlying breach of contract.

Holding

A defendant may not be held liable for punitive damages based on gross negligence when that claim is not independent of an alleged breach of contract.

Headnotes

[1] Under Florida's independent tort rule, punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract unless the plaintiff asserts a tort claim that is separate and independ…

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

Key Quotes

“Florida's independent tort rule precludes the recovery of punitive damages for a breach of contract claim unless the claimant has asserted a tort independent of the alleged breach of contract.”
Court explaining the controlling legal standard for punitive damages in contract disputes.

Facts & Procedural History

Lacalamita sued the Abads for damages resulting from their failure to maintain a condominium unit leased to her. Lacalamita sought leave to amend her …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Breach Of Non-Delegable Duty Vicarious Liability For Negligence Florida Residential Landlord And Tenant Act Motion To Amend Complaint

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Non-Delegable Duty cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

HENDON, J.

Mario Abad and Claudia Abad (collectively, “Abads”) appeal from a non-final order granting Venus Lacalamita’s (“Lacalamita”) motion for leave to amend to file a fourth amended complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages (“Motion for Leave to Amend”).¹ We reverse as Lacalamita is precluded from seeking punitive damages based on the independent tort rule.

Lacalamita filed suit against the Abads and others, seeking damages allegedly sustained as a result of the Abads’ failure to maintain their condominium unit leased to Lacalamita. Thereafter, Lacalamita filed the Motion for Leave to Amend, which was based on the same facts alleged in the initial complaint, attaching the proposed fourth amended complaint. The proposed fourth amended complaint was filed only against the Abads and alleged the following counts: Count I—breach of contract; Count II— violation of section 83.40 et seq., Florida Statutes (Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act); Count III—gross negligence; Count IV—

Footnotes

1 This Court has jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(G) (providing that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review by interlocutory appeal a nonfinal order granting or denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages); Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Kesten, 3D22-582, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1783 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 24, 2022) (holding that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review by interlocutory appeal a nonfinal order granting or denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages where the order was rendered before the effective date of rule 9.130(a)(3)(G), which was April 1, 2022, but the interlocutory appeal was filed in the district court after the effective date of rule 9.130(a)(3)(G)).

2 vicariously liability for the negligence of the company hired by Mario Abad to maintain the condominium unit; Count V—breach of a non-delegable duty to provide reasonably safe premises; and Count VI—negligent infliction of emotional distress. The only count in which Lacalamita specifically sought punitive damages was in Count III—gross negligence. 2 Pursuant to section 768.72(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2021), a defendant may be held liable for punitive damages if a jury finds that the defendant was personally guilty of “gross negligence.” Count III was based on the same facts alleged in Count I for breach of contract, and basically sought the same damages, except that in Count III, Lacalamita also sought punitive damages. “Florida’s independent tort rule precludes the recovery of punitive damages for a breach of contract claim unless the claimant has asserted a tort independent of the alleged breach of contract.” TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516, 519 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); see also Ghodrati v. Miami Paneling Corp., 770 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Punitive damages are generally not recoverable for a breach of contract unless it is accompanied by a separate and independent tort claim.”). As Lacalamita’s claim that the Abad’s conduct constituted “gross negligence” is not independent of the alleged breach of contract 2 The initial complaint did not include a count for gross negligence.

3 claim, she is precluded from seeking punitive damages for the Abads’ alleged “gross negligence” based on Florida’s independent tort rule. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review. Based on our conclusion, we do not need to address the remaining arguments raised in this non-final appeal. Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Darragh Kenny v. Everlong, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Augenblick v. The United States, 377 F.2d 586 (Ct. Cl. 1967)

…he law officer was confronted — when it was learned that the policeman had not in fact sworn to his pre-trial statement — with potential procedural error of sufficient gravity to vitiate an ultimate finding of guilty. Cf. United States v. Schilling, 22 C.M.R. 272, 274 (1957). The steps taken by him and the convening authority to cure this serious defect were well within the bounds of sound judgment. An error in the pretrial investigation might possibly be cured by testimony received at the trial. See, e. g.,…

Authorities Cited

TRG Desert INN Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
Soraya Ghodrati v. Miami Paneling Corp., 770 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
Bpi Sports, LLC v. Fla. Supplement, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1783 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw