Globe Newspaper Co. v. King
658 So. 2d 518, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 317, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1127 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's compliance with the procedural requirements of a statute governing claims for punitive damages, but it does not have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the trial court relied in permitting the claim to be added.
Facts:
- Matthew J. King was involved in a civil lawsuit against Globe Newspaper Company.
- During the litigation, King sought to add a claim for punitive damages to his complaint.
- King filed a motion with the trial court to amend his complaint accordingly.
- As required by statute, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on King's motion.
- During the hearing, King proffered evidence to demonstrate a reasonable basis for his punitive damages claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew J. King sued Globe Newspaper Company in a Florida trial court.
- King filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an order granting King's motion.
- Globe Newspaper Company, the defendant, petitioned the First District Court of Appeal for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's order.
- The First District Court of Appeal denied the petition for certiorari but certified a direct conflict with decisions from other Florida appellate districts.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict among the district courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate court have certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's interlocutory order granting a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.
No, as to the sufficiency of the evidence, but yes, as to procedural compliance. An appellate court may not grant certiorari to review a trial judge's determination that a plaintiff made a sufficient evidentiary showing to plead punitive damages, but may grant certiorari if the trial judge fails to follow the mandatory procedural requirements of section 768.72. The court reasoned that section 768.72 creates a substantive legal right not to be subjected to a punitive damages claim or related financial discovery until a trial court determines there is a reasonable evidentiary basis. A failure to follow the statutory procedure, such as not holding a hearing, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law causing harm that cannot be remedied on final appeal. However, reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence itself, as in the pre-statute case of Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, would constitute an improper interlocutory appeal and does not rise to the level of irreparable harm required for certiorari.
Dissenting - Anstead, J.
Yes. Certiorari review should be available to assess both the procedure and the sufficiency of the evidence. The majority's holding creates a 'hollow victory' by recognizing a substantive right but providing no meaningful way to enforce it. The core of the statutory right is the requirement of a 'reasonable showing by evidence.' If a trial court allows a punitive damages claim based on clearly insufficient evidence, the defendant's statutory right to be free from the claim and the ensuing invasive financial discovery is violated. This harm cannot be remedied on final appeal because, by then, 'the cat is out of the bag.' Therefore, to give the statute its intended effect, appellate review of the evidentiary basis is necessary.
Analysis:
This decision bifurcates the standard for interlocutory review of punitive damages claims, creating a clear line between procedural compliance and substantive evaluation. By allowing certiorari review for procedural errors but not for evidentiary sufficiency, the Florida Supreme Court gives trial judges significant discretion while preventing them from ignoring the statutory framework altogether. This ruling limits a defendant's ability to challenge the merits of a punitive damages claim before trial, potentially increasing litigation costs for defendants who must defend claims they believe are baseless. It solidifies the principle that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy reserved for procedural departures that cause irreparable harm, not for disagreements over a trial court's discretionary factual findings.
