Globe Newspaper Co. v. King

Citations: 658 So. 2d 518; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 317; 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1127; 1995 WL 392709Docket: 84676

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; July 6, 1995; Florida; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the decision in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 643 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), which was certified to be in conflict with prior rulings from the Fourth and Third Districts. The court asserted jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution and reconciled its findings with some cases while identifying a direct conflict with Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Rockhead. 

The central issue was whether appellate courts can grant certiorari to review a trial court's order allowing a plaintiff to amend a complaint to include punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993). The court concluded that while appellate courts have certiorari jurisdiction to assess compliance with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, they cannot review a trial judge's decision to permit an amendment for punitive damages if procedural standards were met.

In this case, Matthew King sought to include punitive damages in his complaint, and the trial court found sufficient evidence to support this claim after an evidentiary hearing. Globe Newspaper’s petition for certiorari argued that section 768.72 grants a substantive right against punitive damages based on insufficient evidence, a right it believed could only be preserved through interlocutory appeal. The district court denied the certiorari but acknowledged a conflict with other district decisions.

The court referred to Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, emphasizing that appellate courts cannot review interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss or strike punitive damages claims. It reiterated that the sufficiency of a punitive damages pleading does not qualify for extraordinary certiorari review, even with subsequent financial disclosures. Section 768.72 requires a reasonable showing of evidence for punitive damages claims and outlines the process for amending complaints and conducting related discovery.

Section 768.72 establishes a substantive right for defendants to avoid punitive damages claims and related financial worth discovery until the trial court determines there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for such claims. The courts, as established in cases like Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum and Henn v. Sandler, have mandated adherence to the procedural requirements of section 768.72, emphasizing that failure to do so deviates from essential legal principles. A plaintiff must present reasonable evidence to support a claim for punitive damages before it can be included in their complaint. The appellate courts are empowered to grant certiorari if there is a failure to follow the procedures mandated by section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence used by trial judges in making their determinations. The majority opinion disapproves Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Rockhead, which allowed certiorari for evidence sufficiency review, asserting that such a review would undermine procedural integrity. The court affirms the decisions in Henn and Kraft General Foods concerning procedural adherence but limits certiorari review strictly to ensuring compliance with the evidentiary inquiry required by the statute. The dissenting opinion agrees with the majority's interpretation of section 768.72 and its procedural implications.

The Court grants the petitioner a limited victory by only reviewing the trial court's procedures and not enforcing the substantive rights outlined in section 768.72. This section mandates that a claimant must provide a reasonable evidentiary basis to justify recovery of certain damages before any financial discovery can occur. The case cited, Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Rockhead, illustrates that in circumstances like a motor vehicle accident with minimal evidence of wrongdoing, punitive damages are unsupported. Therefore, the order under review is quashed. The legislature has conferred a substantive right preventing financial discovery without adequate evidentiary support, and violations of this statute cannot be addressed through regular appeals, as the information would already be disclosed. The author argues that certiorari review is appropriate to uphold legislative intent. Globe asserts that the irreparable harm comes from defending against punitive damages claims and producing financial worth information, which violates section 768.72, and that this right cannot be remedied through plenary appeal.