Ramon International Insurance Brokers, Inc., Etc., and Iris Arden v. Chaucer Syndicates Limited, Etc., and Anova Marine Insurance Services, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0971
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 6, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0971 Lower Tribunal No. 21-7788-CA-01 ________________

Ramon International Insurance Brokers, Inc., etc., and Iris Arden, Appellants,

vs.

Chaucer Syndicates Limited, etc., and Anova Marine Insurance Services, LLC, Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Fox Rothschild LLP, and Joseph A. DeMaria and Victor Sanabria, for appellants.

Colodny Fass, and Maria Elena Abate and Fernando J. Valle (Sunrise), for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellants Ramon International Insurance Brokers, Inc. and Iris Arden

appeal the trial court’s order on dueling motions to amend for punitive

damages. The trial court denied Ramon International’s request, but granted

Appellees Chaucer Syndicates Limited’s and Anova Marine Insurance

Services, LLC’s request. We affirm the denial of Ramon International’s

motion without further discussion. But we reverse the grant of Chaucer

Syndicates’ and Anova Marine Insurance’s motion.

In their complaint, Anova Marine Insurance and Chaucer Syndicates

assert numerous causes of action sounding in both tort and contract. The

trial court permitted punitive damages to be pled against Arden in Count V

for fraud and against Ramon in Count VI for fraud in the inducement. Yet

the Appellees seek the same damages as their contract claims—the

difference in premiums collected and wrongly retained. For this reason, we

reverse the order allowing amendment for punitive damages. See S. Bell

Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Hanft, 436 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1983) (“In general, punitive

damages may not be awarded in cases based upon breach of contract. In

order for punitive damages to be recoverable in such a case, the breach of

contract must be attended by some additional wrongful conduct amounting

to an independent tort.”); Ghodrati v. Miami Paneling Corp., 770 So. 2d 181,

182–83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Punitive damages are generally not

2 recoverable for a breach of contract unless it is accompanied by a separate

and independent tort claim. Plaintiff argues that because her complaint pled

tort claims of fraudulent inducement, deceit and negligent misrepresentation

this case falls within the exception and she is entitled to punitive damages.

A plaintiff, however, may not recover damages for fraud that duplicate

damages awarded for breach of contract.”) (citations omitted); see also

Peebles v. Puig, 223 So. 3d 1065, 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Under such

circumstances, Florida does not allow a party damaged by a breach of

contract to recover the exact same contract damages via a fraud claim.”);

Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA

1994) (“It is well established that breach of contractual terms may not form

the basis for a claim in tort. Where damages sought in tort are the same as

those for breach of contract a plaintiff may not circumvent the contractual

relationship by bringing an action in tort.”).

Reversed, in part; affirmed, in part.