Young v. USAA Casualty Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young v. USAA Casualty Insurance

80 So. 3d 1147, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3727, 2012 WL 716156

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2012

Docket4D11-44

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 So. 3d 1147 (Young v. USAA Casualty Insurance) 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

Young v. USAA Casualty Insurance, 80 So. 3d 1147, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3727, 2012 WL 716156 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Wendy I. Young appeals the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) as a sanction for Young’s failure to comply with various discovery orders.

“An order dismissing a complaint as a sanction must ‘contain an explicit finding of willful noncompliance.’ ” Carpenter v. McCarty, 810 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (quoting Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990)); see also Adlington v. Florida Parole Com’n, 824 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Lenfestey v. U.S. Balloon Corp., 699 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). The order granting dismissal with prejudice must include an explicit finding of willfulness, even when the lower court cites, with specificity, substan *1148 tial facts that would support a finding of willfulness. Carpenter, 810 So.2d at 1054.

Here, although the trial court’s order contains details surrounding Young’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and attend depositions, the order does not include an explicit finding of willful noncompliance. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Our decision does not preclude the trial court from entering the same relief as in the instant order.

Reversed and Remanded.

POLEN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Wendy I. Young appeals the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) as a sanction for Young’s failure to comply with various discovery orders.

“An order dismissing a complaint as a sanction must ‘contain an explicit finding of willful noncompliance.’ ” Carpenter v. McCarty, 810 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (quoting Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990)); see also Adlington v. Florida Parole Com’n, 824 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Lenfestey v. U.S. Balloon Corp., 699 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). The order granting dismissal with prejudice must include an explicit finding of willfulness, even when the lower court cites, with specificity, substan *1148 tial facts that would support a finding of willfulness. Carpenter, 810 So.2d at 1054.

Here, although the trial court’s order contains details surrounding Young’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and attend depositions, the order does not include an explicit finding of willful noncompliance. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Our decision does not preclude the trial court from entering the same relief as in the instant order.

Reversed and Remanded.

POLEN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 3d 1147, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3727, 2012 WL 716156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-usaa-casualty-insurance-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack