ANDERSON
v.
BURWELL MOTOR CO. ET AL.
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.
Anderson sued Burwell Motor Co. for conversion of his automobile valued at $2,500. The circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Civil Court of Record had exclusive jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000. Anderson appealed, arguing that punitive damages should be included to establish jurisdiction, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations to support punitive damages.
The court held that the circuit court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations to support punitive damages. Mere use of strong adverbs describing the defendants' conduct does not constitute the specific factual allegations of fraud, malice, gross negligence, or oppression necessary to justify punitive damages, and therefore the amount in controversy remained within the Civil Court of Record's exclusive jurisdiction.
“There could be no recovery for punitive damages in the absence of allegations of 'general facts and circumstances of fraud, malice, gross negligence, or oppression'”
Establishes the legal standard for pleading punitive damages, requiring specific factual allegations beyond mere descriptive language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson filed a complaint alleging that appellees exercised dominion and control over his automobile while in his possession and caused it to be remo…
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 Exclusive Original Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellant filed a complaint in the circuit court containing an allegation that •the appellees did “exercise dominion and control” over a certain automobile while it was in the appellant’s possession and did -cause it to be removed from the place where appellant had put it. It was stated that the value of the motorcar was $2,500.
The circuit judge dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Civil •Court of Record in the county has “exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases at law' * * * where the matter in controversy does not exceed * * * three thousand ($3000) dollars * * *.” Chapter 8521, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1921, as amended, Chapter 27169, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1951.
. The appellant challenges this action because he claims that the averments of his complaint would have justified the recovery of punitive damages of more than $500 so that the sum of punitive and compensatory damages would have made the amount in controversy sufficient to vest jurisdiction of the cause in the circuit court.
We do not find in the pleading the averments to sustain this position. It is charged that dominion over the property was intentionally, unlawfully and deliberately exercised and that as a result of the “acts of the said defendants in willfully, wantonly and maliciously converting the said automobile” the appellant was inconvenienced, humiliat‘ed and embarrassed. But the adverbs the pleader selected did not so strengthen the statement of a loss for which compensatory damages might be recovered as to warrant recovery for punitive damages as well. . There could be no recovery for punitive damages in the absence of allegations of “general facts and circumstances of fraud, - malice, gross negligence, or oppression * * * ” Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214, 222. -No charges of this character were made.
The circuit judge was correct in his holding that under the indefinite allegations of the complaint the compensatory damages could not be enhanced 'by punitive damages to such extent that the “amount claimed and put in controversy in good faith” was sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc., v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So. 2d 387, 388.
The judgment is affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Int'l Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1975)…165 So. 2d 434 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1964). Even a tort action will not support punitive damages where the assertions of willfulness and malice are not supported by specific allegations regarding the malicious conduct. Anderson v. Burwell Motors Co., 73 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1954); General Finance Corp. v. Sexton, 155 So. 2d 159 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1963). . Mizell v. Upchurch, 46 Fla. 443, 35 So. 9 (1903). . Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(b); Nantell v. Lim-Wick Constr. Co., 228 So. 2d 634 (4th Dist.Ct.App. Fla. 1970). . A…
-
Gen. Fin. Corp. OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. Sexton, 155 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…, J., concur. . Star Fruit Co. v. Eagle Lake Growers, Inc., 160 Fla. 130, 33 So. 2d 858 (1948). . Ibid. . West Yellow Pine Co. v. Stephens, 80 Fla. 298, 86 So. 241 (1920). . Chapter 319, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . Anderson v. Burwell Motor Co., 73 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1954). . Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936). . Ibid.…
-
City OF Miami v. Cosgrove, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…particular case belongs, and ... the power of the court to adjudge as to the general question involved before it.” Swebilius v. Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, 365 So. 2d at 1070 (citation omitted); cf. Anderson v. Burwell Motor Co., 73 So. 2d 822 (Fla.1954) (since claim for punitive damages was not supported by allegations in complaint, and claimed compensatory damages were for less than jurisdictional amount, circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction); Hanley v. Gables Trust Co., 147…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Mrs. Clara Harrison, 147 Fla. 732 (Fla. 1941)