Simeon, Inc. v. Cox
1996 WL 154142, 671 So. 2d 158 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 768.72, a plaintiff must first obtain leave from the trial court to amend their complaint before a claim for punitive damages may be asserted; including such a claim in an initial complaint without prior court approval is procedurally improper.
Facts:
- Donna Cox and Juanita Arnold were employees of Simeon, Inc.
- Martin Traub, the vice president of Simeon, Inc., allegedly subjected Cox and Arnold to verbal abuse.
- Traub allegedly referred to Cox and Arnold with epithets such as "idiotic bitch" and "thief," and used other profane language.
- Traub continually and falsely accused both women of stealing money from the business.
- Traub eventually swore to a criminal complaint, formally accusing Cox and Arnold of stealing from the business.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Cox and Juanita Arnold (Plaintiffs) sued Simeon, Inc. and Martin Traub (Defendants) in a Florida trial court, including claims for compensatory and punitive damages in their initial, sworn complaint.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the punitive damages claim, arguing the plaintiffs failed to comply with Florida Statute § 768.72.
- The trial court denied both of the defendants' motions.
- Defendants (Petitioners) sought a writ of certiorari in the Fifth District Court of Appeal to review the trial court's denial of their motions.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) denied the writ, holding that the sworn allegations in the complaint provided a reasonable basis for the punitive damages claim.
- Defendants then sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction based on a direct conflict with another appellate decision.
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 a plaintiff comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Statute § 768.72 by including a claim for punitive damages in their initial sworn complaint without first moving to amend and obtaining leave of court?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.
No. A plaintiff does not comply with Florida Statute § 768.72 by including a claim for punitive damages in an initial complaint, even if sworn, and must first obtain leave of court to amend the complaint to add such a claim. The statute creates a substantive legal right for a defendant not to be subjected to a punitive damages claim until the trial court determines there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery. The plain meaning of the statute requires a plaintiff to make this showing before the court may allow the claim. Therefore, the proper procedure is for a claimant to move to amend the complaint, at which point the court assesses whether a reasonable basis exists. Including the claim at the outset, as the plaintiffs did here, renders the statute meaningless and violates the defendant's right to be free from such claims until the required showing is made. Any punitive damages claim alleged prior to receiving leave of court must be stricken.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the procedural gatekeeping function of Florida Statute § 768.72, establishing a bright-line rule that punitive damages cannot be included in an initial complaint. It confirms that the statute creates a substantive right for defendants to be shielded from punitive damages claims—and the accompanying intrusive financial discovery—until a plaintiff proffers sufficient evidence to a judge. By mandating a motion to amend as the exclusive procedural vehicle, the Court prevents plaintiffs from using the threat of punitive damages as leverage from the outset of litigation and ensures judicial oversight before such serious claims can proceed.
