From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolper Ross Ingham Co. v. Liedman

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 30, 1989
544 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

holding that party seeking punitive damages is not entitled to financial worth discovery until the party complies with section 768.72

Summary of this case from Key West Convalescent Ctr. v. Doherty

Opinion

No. 89-899.

May 30, 1989.

Petition from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert P. Kaye, J.

Ferrell, Williams and Douglas L. Williams, Miami, for petitioners.

Stewart, Tilghman, Fox Bianchi, P.A., and Larry S. Stewart, Miami, for respondents.

Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED


Petitioners, defendants below, seek a writ of common law certiorari contending that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the respondents' motion to compel production of certain financial statements reflecting the liabilities and net worth of the petitioners. The discovery relates to the respondents' claims for punitive damages and, accordingly, is governed by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides as follows:

768.72. Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages. —

In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted 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. The claimant may move to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so as [to] allow the claimant discovery of evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.

By its clear terms, the statute requires the respondents to make a showing by proffer or through evidence in the record that some reasonable basis exists to support recovery of punitive damages before the trial court permits a pleading requesting such damages.

The trial court erred in permitting discovery to proceed on the claim for punitive damages without first making a finding that a basis exists for their recovery. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Respondents' argument that the petitioners "waived" the protection of the statute is not well taken. The supreme court has determined that section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1987), creates substantive rights and that the procedural provisions of the section are intertwined with the definition of those substantive rights. Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080, 1092 n. 10 (Fla. 1987).

Certiorari granted; order quashed.


Summaries of

Wolper Ross Ingham Co. v. Liedman

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 30, 1989
544 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

holding that party seeking punitive damages is not entitled to financial worth discovery until the party complies with section 768.72

Summary of this case from Key West Convalescent Ctr. v. Doherty

In Wolper Ross Ingham Co. Inc. v. Liedman, 544 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), and Will v. Systems Engineering Consultants Inc., 554 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), the court reached the same conclusion.

Summary of this case from Henn v. Sandler
Case details for

Wolper Ross Ingham Co. v. Liedman

Case Details

Full title:WOLPER ROSS INGHAM COMPANY, INC., ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. Y. STEVEN…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 30, 1989

Citations

544 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Key West Convalescent Ctr. v. Doherty

Certiorari is an appropriate remedy where a trial court permits financial worth discovery without first…

Will v. Sys. Engineering Consultants

Our court has interpreted the statute to place the burden on the plaintiff "to make a showing by proffer or…