207 So. 3d 993
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Donald DeVore, a resident at Atria Evergreen Woods (an assisted living facility), was found unresponsive in the facility hot tub and later died; plaintiff (personal representative) alleged negligence and wrongful death and later sought punitive damages.
- After about a year of litigation, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add punitive-damage claims and served a written proffer (experts’ affidavits, autopsy, depositions, facility records, inspection reports, photos, etc.).
- Defendants objected and requested a hearing (two written requests and one oral request), arguing the proffer lacked evidence of intentional misconduct or conscious gross negligence.
- The trial court granted leave to amend to assert punitive damages without holding any hearing and limited its ruling to permissive pleading (not the ultimate entitlement to recover).
- Defendants petitioned for certiorari, arguing the court’s failure to hold a Rule 1.190(f) hearing violated procedural due process and that the proffer was legally insufficient.
- The appellate court granted certiorari in part, quashed the amendment order, and remanded with instructions to hold a hearing; the appellate court declined to reach merits of the sufficiency of the proffer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f) require a hearing before granting leave to amend to assert punitive damages? | Rule contemplates and requires a hearing; plaintiff complied by serving a proffer in advance. | Rule and due process require a hearing; defendants requested one and were denied. | Yes. Rule 1.190(f) requires a hearing; granting leave without a hearing denied defendants due process. |
| Did the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing amount to a departure from essential requirements of law justifying certiorari relief? | No explicit argument on this point beyond compliance with procedural requirements. | Denial of a hearing was a departure from essential requirements and deprived defendants of substantive rights. | Yes. The court quashed the order and remanded for a hearing. |
| Is an evidentiary (trial-style) hearing required to evaluate a punitive-damage proffer? | Plaintiff argued its proffer sufficed and a full evidentiary hearing was not necessary. | Defendants sought opportunity to contest the proffer at a hearing. | No. An evidentiary hearing is not mandated; a hearing is required but need not be trial-type with live testimony. |
| May local rules or practices eliminate the Rule 1.190(f) hearing requirement? | Not argued in favor. | Local rules/practices cannot override Supreme Court rules. | No. Local rules or practices cannot circumvent the mandatory hearing requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (substantive right not to face punitive-damage claim and financial discovery until statutory showing is made)
- Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1996) (procedural protections for punitive-damage claims)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (availability of certiorari to review premature punitive-damage claims)
- Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (hearing required but not necessarily evidentiary)
- Munroe Reg’l Health Sys., Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales, 795 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (certiorari proper to review procedural compliance on punitive-damage pleadings)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lezcano, 22 So.3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (rule using a hearing date contemplates that a hearing is required)
- Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (no discretion to decide that a hearing is unnecessary under similar rules)
- Greene v. Seigle, 745 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (denial of hearing on dispositive motion infringes due process)
- Berkheimer v. Berkheimer, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (local rules cannot contravene Supreme Court rules)