BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
v.
UGO COLOMBO
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.
Bank of America sought certiorari review of a trial court order granting Ugo Colombo leave to assert a punitive damages claim. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, finding that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of Florida Statutes section 768.72(1) and that Bank of America's arguments lacked merit.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, and Bank of America's arguments lack merit.
[1] Certiorari review of an order granting leave to assert a punitive damages claim is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of Florida…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“certiorari review is not available to review the sufficiency of the respondent's evidentiary proffer”
Discussing the limited scope of appellate review for punitive damages orders
Colombo proffered evidence in support of a claim for punitive damages against Bank of America. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Colombo…
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
Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1909 Lower Tribunal No. 13-8545 ________________ Bank of America, N.A.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Ugo Colombo, et al., Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, and Alan M. Pierce and Frank P. Cuneo, for petitioner. Crabtree & Auslander, LLC, and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, Linda A. Wells, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for respondents. Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. HENDON, J.
Bank of America, N.A., seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting Ugo Colombo (“Colombo”) leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against Bank of America. We deny the petition.
The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2021).
Colombo proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages against Bank of America, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that Colombo “proffered a reasonable evidentiary basis for a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that such damages are warranted.” Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari and, in doing so, conclude that the arguments raised by Bank of America lack merit.
See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing that the scope of an appellate court’s certiorari review of an order granting a motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the sufficiency of the respondent’s evidentiary proffer); see also E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020);
Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. v. Rodriguez, 299 So. 3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)