Keller Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Keller Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy

668 So. 2d 328, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1524, 1996 WL 72221

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3918

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 668 So. 2d 328 (Keller Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keller Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy, 668 So. 2d 328, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1524, 1996 WL 72221 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant this petition for writ of certiora-ri. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss counts I, III and IV of respondent’s amended complaint. Count IV alleged intentional torts and sought leave to claim punitive damages. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss as to counts I and IV with leave for respondent to seek punitive damages in a second amended complaint. The trial court had not, however, conducted an evidentiary hearing on respondent’s entitlement to such damages.

This court has consistently held that a claim for punitive damages may not be as[329]*329serted without a trial court having first determined that a factual basis for such damages exists as required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993). See Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Oriole Homes Corp. v. Stevens, 638 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1994); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we quash that part of the trial court’s order providing, “Plaintiff may serve an Amended Complaint containing a claim for punitive damages and this Court will then hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if Plaintiff may proceed.”

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

DELL, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We grant this petition for writ of certiora-ri. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss counts I, III and IV of respondent’s amended complaint. Count IV alleged intentional torts and sought leave to claim punitive damages. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss as to counts I and IV with leave for respondent to seek punitive damages in a second amended complaint. The trial court had not, however, conducted an evidentiary hearing on respondent’s entitlement to such damages.

This court has consistently held that a claim for punitive damages may not be as[329]*329serted without a trial court having first determined that a factual basis for such damages exists as required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993). See Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Oriole Homes Corp. v. Stevens, 638 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1994); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we quash that part of the trial court’s order providing, “Plaintiff may serve an Amended Complaint containing a claim for punitive damages and this Court will then hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if Plaintiff may proceed.”

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

DELL, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 328, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1524, 1996 WL 72221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-industries-inc-v-kennedy-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack