263 So. 3d 63
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner investors (KIS, Alerion, DeAvila) managed KIS and redeemed Respondent Moquin’s membership units in 2015 after Moquin requested redemption; KIOSK later sold for a substantial profit.
- Moquin sued alleging fraud in the inducement, claiming Petitioners knowingly withheld that a sale was imminent to induce an early redemption. Three fraud claims survived summary judgment.
- Moquin moved to amend his complaint to add punitive damages; at the hearing the trial court expressed skepticism that the facts supported punitive damages but felt constrained by precedent and granted leave to amend.
- The trial court did not conduct the evidentiary inquiry or statutory gatekeeper procedure required by section 768.72 before allowing the punitive damages claim.
- Petitioners sought certiorari review of the order granting leave to amend, arguing the court departed from the procedural requirements of section 768.72.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of summary judgment on fraud equals reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages | Ablanedo: proof of fraud supporting compensatory damages creates jury question on punitive damages, so prior denial of summary judgment suffices | Section 768.72 requires a separate evidentiary showing; summary judgment denial is not equivalent | Denied: summary judgment standard is not substitute for statutory 768.72 evidentiary inquiry |
| Whether trial court must perform gatekeeper weighing under section 768.72 before permitting punitive damages discovery | Moquin argued the court’s prior rulings functionally satisfied the requirement | Petitioners argued statute mandates proffer/record evidence and court weighing before allowing punitive claim and financial discovery | Court held statutory procedure was not followed; certiorari granted and order quashed |
| Proper scope of Ablanedo after section 768.72 enactment | Moquin relied on Ablanedo to justify amendment | Petitioners and court concluded Ablanedo addressed directed verdict context and does not control summary-judgment/amendment context under §768.72 | Ablanedo does not justify bypassing statutory procedure |
| Availability of certiorari review | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Certiorari appropriate to review compliance with §768.72 procedures (but not sufficiency of evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987) (held proof of fraud sufficient for compensatory damages can create a jury question on punitive damages in directed-verdict context)
- Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (summary judgment analysis is not a substitute for the §768.72 punitive-damages procedure)
- Potter v. S.A.K. Dev. Corp., 678 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (denial of summary judgment on fraud is not equivalent to establishing a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages)
- Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (certiorari available to review trial court compliance with §768.72 procedural requirements)
- Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (statute requires court to act as gatekeeper and preclude punitive claim where no reasonable evidentiary basis exists)