Ariel Friedler v. Faena Hotels and Residences, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1395
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1395 Lower Tribunal No. 18-27906 ________________

Ariel Friedler, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Faena Hotels and Residences, LLC, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge.

Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, and Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz and Joshua Truppman, for appellants.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellants Ariel and Allison Friedler brought a negligence action, in

2018, against appellee Faena Hotels and Residences, LLC (“Faena”) after

Ariel Friedler was injured in a fall in a spa operated by Faena. On June 23,

2022, the Friedlers filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add

a claim for punitive damages. The trial court denied the motion and the

Friedlers timely appealed this non-final ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) and affirm.

An analysis of whether a claim for punitive damages is warranted

proceeds from this statutory direction: “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.” § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat.

(2022); see Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 609-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

“A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact,

based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was

personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” § 768.72(2),

Fla. Stat. (2022).

In its order on appeal, the trial court found that the Friedlers’ evidence

did not support their allegation that Faena, as a corporate entity, engaged in

intentional misconduct or gross negligence when it authorized the installation

2 throughout the spa of a type of marble that proved slippery. The trial court

further found that Faena, as principal, was not liable for punitive damages

for the conduct of its employees or agents when the evidence did not show

that Faena knowingly participated in or consented to the conduct at issue.

See § 768.72(3), Fla. Stat. (2022).

In our de novo1 review, we conclude that the Friedlers’ evidence was

insufficient to demonstrate that Faena: (i) after receiving the results of friction

tests, failed to clean and seal the marble before its installation; or (ii) knew

that it had anything more dangerous than the apparently slippery condition

of a wet spa floor, a condition it sought to mitigate with a warning and an

offer of sandals to each customer. The evidence does not demonstrate that

Faena’s conduct was so willful or wanton as to warrant the punishment of

punitive damages. Punitive damages are reserved for only the most

egregious cases. See Manheimer v. Fla. Power & Light, 48 Fla. L. Weekly

D1495, 2023 WL 4919540, at *2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 2, 2023).2

Affirmed.

1 This Court reviews de novo whether a party should be allowed to plead a punitive damages claim. Grove Isle Ass’n v. Lindzon, 350 So. 3d 826, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). 2 This opinion should not be construed as a comment on the merits of the Friedlers’ underlying negligence action.