FORTIMIL PIERRE-LOUIS, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
In this insurance dispute, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's reduction of a punitive damages award from $1,000,000, finding that while the insurer's conduct was sufficiently egregious to submit the punitive damages claim to the jury under Florida insurance statutes, it did not justify the full award amount.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the punitive damages award. A trial court is authorized to order a new trial on punitive damages where the tort lacks the degree of maliciousness and/or outrageous disregard for the plaintiff's rights to sustain the amount of the verdict, and such circumstances were supported by the record here.
[1] A trial court may order a new trial on punitive damages when the tort committed lacks the degree of maliciousness or outrageous disregard for the plaintiff's rights to su…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by reducing a punitive damages award when the defendant's conduct, while egregious enough to submit the claim to the jury, is…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“a trial court is authorized to order a new trial on punitive damages 'where the tort committed is lacking the degree of maliciousness and/or outrageous disregard for the plaintiff's rights to sustain the amount of the verdict.'”
Establishes the legal standard for trial court authority to reduce punitive damages awards
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a first-party insurance claim under Florida Statutes sections 624.155 and 626.9541. The trial court found the appellee insurance co…
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 Maliciousness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm, rejecting both parties’ claims of error by the trial court. As to appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in reducing the punitive damages award, we explain our reasoning in leaving that decision intact so that the parties may seek review if we are incorrect in our interpretation of the prevailing law.
The trial court entered an order denying the appellee’s motion for new trial but granting a request to reduce the punitive damage award or, alternatively, ordering a new trial. The punitive damage claim involved herein is predicated upon a statute, rather than the common law. The claim involved, a first party insurance claim, would otherwise not give rise to a punitive damage recovery.
The trial court determined that the appellee’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to submit a punitive damages claim to the jury under the provisions of sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), but such conduct was not sufficiently egregious to support a punitive damages award of $1,000,-000.00. Under our reading of Wackenhut v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978), we believe a trial court is authorized to order a new trial on punitive damages “where the tort committed is lacking the degree of maliciousness and/or outrageous disregard for the plaintiff’s rights to sustain the amount of the verdict.” Id. at 436.
Although the court reversed a trial judge’s grant of a new trial in Wackenhut, it did so because it found none of the circumstances that would justify such action supported by the record. Here, we believe such circumstance, i.e., the degree of egregiousness, is supported by the record, and, hence, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and MARTIN D. KAHN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 631 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…2d 725 (Fla.1975). . § 624.155(3); Shook v. Allstate Insurance Co., 498 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 508 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1987). . Roberts v. Carter, 350 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1977). . Pierre-Louis v. Colonial Insurance Co. of California, 566 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1991).…
-
Gates v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 564 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Tsiknakis v. Volvo Finance North America Inc., et. al., 566 So. 2d 320 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Abdala v. World Omni Leasing Inc., et. al, 566 So. 2d 320 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Raynor v. De La Nuez, 558 So. 2d 141 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Folmar v. Young, 560 So. 2d 798 (Fla.4th DCA 1990); Kraemer v. GMAC, 556 So. 2d 431 (Fla.2d DCA 1…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)