ALIDA C. REINOSO, PETITIONER,
v.
MANUEL FUENTES, LISA FUENTES, AND HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., 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 District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, holding that a punitive damages claim must be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory procedures requiring a reasonable showing of evidence before or at the time of filing the complaint, not at a later hearing on a motion to dismiss.
A punitive damages claim asserted prior to obtaining leave of court must be dismissed or stricken, regardless of whether evidence is later proffered at a hearing on a motion to dismiss. The statutory procedure requires a reasonable showing of evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant before or at the time of filing the complaint.
[1] A claim for punitive damages in a civil action requires a reasonable showing by evidence proffered by the claimant that provides a basis for recovery.
[2] A plaintiff must obtain leave from the trial court to amend a complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It was inconsequential that the trial court in this case subsequently held a hearing on the motions to dismiss and to strike: any punitive damages claim alleged prior to a party asking for and receiving leave of the court must be dismissed or stricken.”
Establishes the controlling rule from Simeon, Inc. v. Cox that timing of evidence proffer is critical and cannot be cured by later hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel and Lisa Fuentes filed a negligence complaint against Alida C. Reinoso that included a count for punitive damages without making any showing of…
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 Reasonable Showing For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, C.J.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari because the correct procedures were not followed in the assertion of a claim for punitive damages.
In count one of the complaint, Manuel and Lisa Fuentes sued Alida C. Reinoso for negligence. In count three, the plain tiffs asserted a claim for punitive damages against defendant Reinoso.*
The defendant moved to dismiss count three for failure to comply with subsection 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which prohibits a claim for punitive damages “unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” It is undisputed that no such showing was made prior to the filing of the complaint.
At an unreported hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim. The plaintiffs assert, and we accept as true, that they proffered evidence in support of the punitive damages claim at the hearing below. The plaintiffs argue that this proffer satisfied subsection 768.72(1) and brought the plaintiffs into compliance with the statute.
The problem is that the Florida Supreme Court has prohibited such a procedure. On indistinguishable facts, the court said, “It was inconsequential that the trial court in this case subsequently held a hearing on the motions to dismiss and to strike: any punitive damages claim alleged prior to a party asking for and receiving leave of the court must be dismissed or stricken.” Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996) (citation omitted).
That being the case, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order now before us. The punitive damages claim must be stricken. This ruling is, however, without prejudice to the plaintiffs to reallege the claim upon compliance with the procedures outlined in section 768.72 and the Simeon decision.
The plaintiffs argue that the absence of a transcript precludes review. We disagree. It is facially clear on the record that the plaintiffs included a punitive damages claim in their complaint without leave of court. “Here the trial court faced a pure legal question. Both parties have furnished us with complete appendices containing the pleadings, ... documents and order under review, all of which permit us to review the same legal issue on the merits.” Ronbeck Const. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Petition granted.
*
The plaintiffs also asserted a claim for breach of contract against their insurer, Hartford Insurance Co. That defendant and claim are not involved in this proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leavins v. Crystal, 3 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
-
Maderi v. State, 235 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…ioners met the criteria."). 3 While there are no transcripts of the hearings, that fact does not preclude our review as the Petitioners allege a departure from the essential requirements of the law on the face of the orders. See Reinoso v. Fuentes, 932 So. 2d 536, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 1, 2021, Order on [Maderi's] Motion for Acceptance into Misdemeanor Pretrial Veterans' Treatment Intervention Program and its March 2, 2021, Order on [Guzman-Roig's] Request to Transfer to Veterans' Court. In its orders, the…
Authorities Cited
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Simeon, Inc. v. COX, 671 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1996)