In this сase, we answer the question of whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing before granting leave to amend to add claims for punitive damages. Petitioners,
We grant the writ, in part, because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and denied Pеtitioners due process by granting the motion to amend to assert claims for punitive damages without holding a hearing. We dismiss the remainder of the petition without prejudice and without reaching the merits.
Pаrties have a substantive right “not to be subjected to a punitive damage claim and attendant discovery of financial worth until the requisite showing under the statute has been made to the trial court.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Grp.,
Factual allegations and pleadings
Donald DeVore was a resident of Atria Evergreen Woods, an assisted living facility (“the ALF”) owned and operated by Petitioners. While at the ALF, DeVore received occupational and physical therapy to increase his strength. He also regularly used the ALF’s hot tub during scheduled, supervised pool activity time. One аfternoon, another resident of the ALF advis.ed staff that DeVore was alone in the hot tub, and was unresponsive. A nurse and certified nursing assistant arrived and began CPR, but DeVore was declared dead from a heart attack.
Respondent, the personal representative of DeVore’s estate, sued Petitioners initially seeking compensatory damages while asserting claims of negligencе and wrongful death. Respondent asserted, inter alia, that DeVore’s medical conditions contraindicated using the hot tub and that, despite assurances to him and family members to the contrary, the ALF’s staff did not assist, suрervise, or observe Devore while he used the hot tub. Respondent claims that DeVore drowned.
After litigating for approximately a year, Respondent moved for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against all Petitioners. In accordance with the requirements of rule 1.190(f), Respondent attached its proposed amended complaint and written proffer to the motion to amend. The written proffer consisted of eighteen separate sections, including affidavits from Respondent’s experts, De-Vore’s autopsy report, numerоus deposition transcripts, the ALF’s Management-Agreement, the ALF’s Policies and Procedures Index, photographs of the ALF pool area, a map of the ALF, the ALF’s activity calendar, and the State of Florida Department of Health Inspection Reports for the ALF’s hot tub. Petitioners filed their written response in opposition to Respondent’s motion to amend, asserting that the proffеr did not contain evidence that would support a claim of punitive damages against any of the Petitioners.
Although Petitioners made two written requests and one oral request for a hearing on Rеspondent’s motion to amend, the trial court granted the motion to add punitive damages without conducting a hearing. The trial court found that Respondent’s proffer of evidence provided a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages. The trial court noted that it was only ruling on Respondent’s entitlement to plead for punitive damages and that it was not ruling on Respondеnt’s actual entitlement to recover punitive damages. Petitioners timely filed their petition for certiorari.
Rule 1.190(f) hearing
Section 429.297, Florida Statutes (2015), provides the statutory framework for punitive damage сlaims against assisted living facilities. That statute, like the more general punitive damage statute, section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides that “no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 429.297(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Prior to October 2003, the procedural aspects of amending a complaint to
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), which sets forth the procedures to be followed with regard to summary judgment motions, provides additional guidance on whether the language used in rule 1.190(f) makes a hearing mandatory. Like rule 1.190(f), rule 1.510(c) uses the date of the “hearing” as a reference for when certain documents must be filed or sеrved. “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) contemplates a hearing on a summary judgment motion.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lezcano,
Although we find that a hearing'is required by rule 1.190(f), neither party has requested that we outline the specific nature of the mandatory hearing. We previously noted that “an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is offered and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by [seсtion 768.72] in order to determine whether a reasonable basis has been established to plead punitive damages.” Estate of Despain,
Furthermore, no local rule or local practice can eliminаte the rule 1.190(f) hearing. “[T]he courts of this state are not empowered to develop local rules which contravene those promulgated by the Supreme Court.” Berkheimer v. Berkheimer,
Here, the failure of the trial court to conduct a hearing before granting Respondent’s motion to amend to assert a
Reasonable showing by evidence or proffer
Because we are remanding this case to the lowеr court for a hearing on Respondent’s motion to amend, we will not reach the merits of whether Respondent’s evidence of record and proffer constitute a reasonable showing that Respondent has a reasonable basis to recover punitive damages as to any Petitioners. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the petition without prejudice to Petitioners to raise that issue at a later date if appropriate.
PETITION GRANTED in part and DISMISSED in part, ORDER QUASHED, REMANDED with instructions.
Notes
. Petitioners include: WG Evergreen Woods, SH, LLC; Atria Management Company, LLC; Ventas Senior Housing, LLC, Ventas AOC Operating Holdings, Inc.; VTR Evеrgreen Woods, LLC 1/k/a A98 Senior LLC; and James Westrich (the executive director of Atria Evergreen Woods).
. Cases such as Surrey Place of Ocala v. Goodwin,