350 So.3d 826
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Lindzon owns a Grove Isle condominium unit and sued the Grove Isle Association for alleged failure to maintain common elements and breach of the declaration after water damage from a failing roof.
- During the lawsuit the roof was repaired; when Lindzon began unit repairs his contractor discovered exposed, rusted rebar and concrete spalling on the common slab.
- Lindzon twice notified the Association; the Association’s property manager (Rodriguez) communicated with Lindzon’s counsel and told the contractor a permit was “not necessary” to expedite repairs, then canceled work when Lindzon insisted on permit documentation.
- Lindzon moved to amend his complaint to add negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation counts and to seek punitive damages against the Association, attaching the correspondence as proffered evidence.
- The trial court granted leave to amend, finding the manager’s misrepresentations and willful failure to obtain a permit evidenced willful and wanton disregard; the Association appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Lindzon failed to meet the heightened § 768.72 requirements for asserting punitive damages against a corporation because the amended complaint lacked allegations that the Association itself (officers, directors, managers) actively and knowingly participated in, ratified, or were grossly negligent with respect to the alleged misconduct.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lindzon made the reasonable showing required by § 768.72 to amend to assert punitive damages against the Association | Lindzon argued the manager's intentional misconduct and statements (no permit needed) supplied a reasonable basis to seek punitive damages against the Association | Association argued Lindzon failed to plead or proffer evidence that officers/directors/managers actively participated in or ratified the misconduct or that the Association was grossly negligent | Reversed: amended complaint and proffer lacked allegations/evidence meeting § 768.72(2)/(3); punitive claim against Association not permitted |
| Whether corporate punitive liability can be imputed vicariously absent allegations of employer fault | Lindzon implicitly relied on imputing the manager’s conduct to the Association | Association argued punitive damages cannot be imposed vicariously without pleading employer fault at least rising to ordinary negligence and statutorily-required grounds | Court held vicarious liability cannot stand because plaintiff did not allege any negligence or fault by the Association itself; § 768.72(3)(a)-(c) not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tallahassee Mem'l Healthcare, Inc. v. Dukes, 272 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (reviewing de novo leave to plead punitive damages under § 768.72)
- Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (punitive damages aim to punish and deter; reserved for egregious conduct)
- Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (corporate vicarious punitive liability requires employee willful misconduct and some employer fault)
- Coronado Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. La Corte, 103 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (association punitive claim failed where complaint lacked allegations of association's active, knowing participation or consent)
- Fetlar, LLC v. Suarez, 230 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (statute requires more than imputing isolated employee misconduct to corporate defendants)
- TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (granting punitive-claim leave can be a litigation "game changer")