MASSEY SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
KEVIN B. BROWN, ET AL., 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 court held that appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial court complied with the procedural requirements for adding a punitive damage claim, but not to review the court's determination of a reasonable basis for such damages.
[1] A trial court must determine that a reasonable basis for a punitive damage claim exists before a party can assert such a claim.
[2] Appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements for adding a punitive damage claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMassey Services petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court order allowing Kevin and Abby Brown to amend their complaint to add a punitive damag…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Massey Services petitions for certiorari review of the trial court’s order permitting Kevin and Abby Brown to amend their complaint in order to add a punitive damage claim. Finding that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements for adding a punitive damage claim, we deny the petition.
Before a party can assert a claim for punitive damages, the trial court must determine that a reasonable basis for the claim exists. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (1999).
In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court held that appellate courts possess certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial court has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the court’s determination that the claimant demonstrated a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. Based upon this case law, Massey’s petition must be denied. Although Massey contends that the procedural requirements of section 768.72 were not complied with because the Browns failed to proffer any evidence in support of their motion to amend, the motion to amend was heard at the same time as Massey’s motion for summary judgment and, in responding to the motion for summary judgment, the Browns presented their arguments as to the evidence available in the record which supported a claim of punitive damages.
The trial court determined that the Browns made a sufficient showing to allow a claim for punitive damages and we cannot review that decision by certiorari proceedings.1
PETITION DENIED.
SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ„ concur. . Although we are compelled to deny this petition based upon the Globe Newspaper-case, Justice Anstead’s dissent therein, as well as Judge Cobb’s concurring opinion in Munroe Reg’l Health Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), persuasively argue that certiorari should be available to review whether the plaintiff has sufficiently established a preliminary evidentiary basis to assert a punitive damage claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard, 871 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…the statute but cannot review the trial court’s decision to grant leave to amend the complaint once the procedural requirements have been followed. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995). See also Massey Services, Inc. v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, no procedural error appears. The certiorari petition is based on the contention that the facts in the record do not support a claim for punitive dam…
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. The Est. OF Gustl J. Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)