Varnedore v. Copeland
210 So. 3d 741
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two consolidated medical-malpractice certiorari petitions challenging a trial court order that allowed the plaintiff to amend to add punitive-damages claims against two doctors.
- Plaintiff moved to amend but did not attach or file the proposed amended complaint with the motion as required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a).
- At the hearing plaintiff served an evidentiary proffer in advance but also made additional oral proffers during the five-and-a-half-hour hearing over defendants’ objections.
- The trial court granted the motion as to some defendants and denied it as to others but gave no oral or written findings explaining its basis.
- The Fifth DCA concluded the court departed from essential requirements of law by (1) hearing and ruling without a proposed amended complaint on file and (2) permitting untimely/oral evidentiary proffers; the court quashed the order and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement to attach proposed amended complaint to motion to add punitive damages | Rule 1.190(f) suffices; plaintiff need not attach amended complaint to motion | Rule 1.190(a) requires attaching the proposed amended pleading; mandatory | Trial court erred — moving without attaching the proposed amended complaint violates 1.190(a); writ granted |
| Whether oral proffers at hearing satisfy the evidentiary proffer requirement of §768.72 and rule 1.190(f) | Oral proffers at hearing may supplement prefiled proffers; court can consider them | Rule 1.190(f) requires timely filed proffers; oral proffers at hearing are improper | Trial court erred — rule 1.190(f) proffers must be timely filed; oral proffers first made at hearing cannot be considered |
| Requirement that court state findings when granting motion to add punitive damages | Plaintiff did not specifically address level of detail required | Defendants argued court must state its basis for granting to protect rights and limit discovery | Court must make an affirmative finding that a reasonable evidentiary basis exists; failure to state basis was error (remand to allow proper findings) |
| Standard for pleading punitive damages (gross negligence threshold) | Punitive damages may be pursued under gross negligence showing | Defendants maintain pleading must allege statutory gross-negligence elements before proffers considered | Court must first determine proposed amended complaint alleges gross negligence as defined by statute before evaluating evidentiary proffers |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (certiorari standard for departures from essential requirements of law)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (procedural protections before permitting punitive-damage claims)
- Amendments to the Fla. R. of Civ. P., 858 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2003) (adoption of rule 1.190(f) and requirement to attach proposed amended pleading)
- Taylor v. City of Lake Worth, 964 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (attachment requirement of rule 1.190(a) is mandatory)
- Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Meeks, 778 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (timely filing of proffers to allow meaningful opposition)
- Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (court must consider both pleading and evidentiary components for punitive-damage motions)
- Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (substantive right not to face punitive-claim discovery without statutory showing)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Figler Family Chiropractic, P.A., 189 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (summary-judgment evidence-identification rules illustrate need for timely disclosure of evidentiary materials)
- Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (harmless-error burden on the party seeking to uphold a trial court’s ruling)