ALAN CHARLES STEPHENSON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, CHARLES J. STEPHENSON, PETITIONERS,
v.
ALEXANDER M. COLLINS, JR., AND OCALA MANUFACTURING ICE AND PACKING CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a minor's action for punitive damages, holding that a settlement of compensatory damages does not automatically terminate the right to pursue punitive damages when the parties explicitly agreed to exclude punitive damages from the settlement agreement.
A settlement of compensatory damages does not automatically terminate the right to pursue punitive damages when the parties have explicitly agreed to exclude punitive damages from the settlement. The court held that punitive damages may be pursued separately where the parties have made clear their intent to preserve such claims.
“The parties hereto and counsel recognize that there is pending an additional claim by the plaintiff * * * against Defendants * * * for punitive damages arising out of the said accident and it is the intent of all parties and counsel to exclude the claims for punitive damages from the settlement.”
The explicit settlement language showing the parties' intent to preserve the punitive damages claim, which the Court held was binding on the defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlan Charles Stephenson, a minor, was injured in an accident involving Alexander M. Collins, Jr., and Ocala Manufacturing Ice and Packing Co. The part…
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 Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The decision controverted by the petition for certiorari in this case1 is one that passes upon a question certified by the district court of appeal to be of great public interest.2 The court affirmed an order dismissing with prejudice an action for damages for negligence, because of the view that the parties’ compromise and settlement of compensatory damages “automatically terminated any right to proceed further for punitive damages arising out of the same cause of action.”
The majority opinion of the appellate court very adequately states the relevant facts and law.3 We believe, however, that the dissent should be adopted as the correct application of the controlling principles to conclude that the defendants are bound by their explicit agreement:
“The parties hereto and counsel recognize that there is pending an additional *434claim by the plaintiff * * * against Defendants * * * for punitive damages arising out of the said accident and it is the intent of all parties and counsel to exclude the claims for punitive damages from the settlement. * * * ”
Our cases recognizing the rule that punitive damages are dependent upon compensatory, as well as decisions that a punitive award may not be sustained when the jury fails to find for plaintiff on the issue of compensatory damage, are in our opinion wholly consistent with trial of the issues remaining in the present suit. We find no definitive authority for the proposition that compensatory damages must be assessed by formal award or adjudication as a condition to prosecution of the cause of action under these circumstances.
The decision is therefore quashed and the cause remanded for disposition in accordance with the reasoning expressed in the dissenting opinion below.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THORNAL, ERVIN and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE ST. JOE Co. v. Rawlis Leslie, 912 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…bility and nuisance claims require physical harm, rather than just diminution in value. See Stephenson v. Collins, 210 So. 2d 733, 737-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (Rawls, J. dissenting) (regarding negligence claims), decision quashed on other grounds by, 216 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1968); Monroe v. Sarasota County School Bd., 746 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (same); Great Lakes Dredging and Dock Co. v. Sea Gull Operating Co., 460 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (regarding strict liability claims); Adams v. Star Enters., 51…
-
Scott v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 932 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…or punitive damages in the absence of a claim for compensatory damages. That argument is unavailing where, as here, there is a [*479] settlement of the compensatory damage claim, but no settlement of the punitive damage claim. Stephenson v. Collins, 216 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1968). Id. at 528 n. 1. A settlement is the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment or a verdict in favor of the insured. See Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Cos. of Lloyd’s, 439 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla.1983). In the instant case, the parties ent…
-
Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…laim for punitive damages in the absence of a claim for compensatory damages. That argument is unavailing where, as here, there is a settlement of the compensatory damage claim, but no settlement of the' punitive damage claim. Stephenson v. Collins, 216 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1968). . Subsections 1(0(2) and (3) provide: 2. A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting set…
Authorities Cited
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- Stephenson v. Collins, 210 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)