Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 6, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Appeals — Timeliness — Motion to dismiss appeal of order granting plaintiff leave to add claims for punitive damages against defendants is denied — Trial court’s granting of motion to clarify and subsequent issuance of amended order, which subjected appellant to additional claim for punitive damages for the first time, restarted clock for jurisdictional purposes because the addition of appellant to the punitive damages order was a material change

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1976a

DAVID MARK VAN DYKE, Appellant, v. DOMINIQUE BRIANNE TILLMAN and CENTRAL FLORIDA CONTRACTORS SERVICE, LLC, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D22-1018. September 28, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Peter K. Sieg, Judge. Counsel: Todd L. Wallen of Wallen Kelley, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs; Nick G. Zissimopulos, John J. Kelly, and Paul Bruce Brockway of Glassman & Zissimopulos, PLLC, Gainesville; Courtney King and Tiffany Ward of McDonald Toole Wiggins, P.A., Orlando; and F. Bryant Blevins and Joshua A. Golembe of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, for Appellees.OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

(PER CURIAM.) At issue is a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction to review the trial court’s amended order granting plaintiff Dominique Brianne Tillman leave to add claims for punitive damages against defendants Central Florida Contractors Service, LLC, and David Mark Van Dyke. In granting a motion to clarify an error in its original order, the trial court corrected its initial “oversight” by issuing the amended order that made clear for the first time that Van Dyke was potentially subject to the additional claim for punitive damages, granting him twenty days to respond to the amended complaint. The original order included Central Florida Contractors Service, as the only defendant subject to the punitive damages order. The addition of Van Dyke was a material change that was sufficient to restart the clock for purposes of appeal; it is not the type of minor or superficial change that has no impact on the final judgment. See Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (noting that an “amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal”). While the original unamended judgment clearly included defendant Central Florida Contractors Service, who was given twenty days to respond to the amended complaint, Van Dyke was left guessing because he was not included or named. The trial court’s amended order granting Van Dyke’s good faith request to clarify his standing restarted the clock for jurisdictional purposes such that Tillman’s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied. (MAKAR, JAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.)* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982