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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 20, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Punitive damages — Appeals — Certiorari — Order denying motion to add a claim of punitive damages to complaint is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2968a

Torts — Punitive damages — Appeals — Certiorari — Order denying motion to add a claim of punitive damages to complaint is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal

HIGH FIVE PRODUCTS, INC., and DONNA SMITH, Petitioners, v. JAMES “SKIP” RIDDLE, SHERI RIDDLE, and SUZANNE HENRY, Respondents. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-913. December 13, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County; Lauren L. Brodie, Judge. Counsel: Ernest A. Ricci, of The Boatman Law Firm, P.A., of Naples for Petitioners. James “Skip” Riddle, pro se. Sheri Riddle, pro se. Suzanne Henry, pro se.

(PER CURIAM.) Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion to amend their complaint to include a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190. “To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must show ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., 252 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). “The last two elements are jurisdictional and must be analyzed before the court may even consider the first element.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011)).

We align ourselves with our sister courts and hold that an order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal. See Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“[C]ertiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal.”); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“If the trial court erroneously prohibits a punitive damages claim, the plaintiff may obtain relief by way of appeal at the conclusion of the case.”); see also Estate of Esterline v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 845 So. 2d 1028, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (adopting Sloan and denying certiorari regarding an order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to add a claim for punitive damages). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed. (MORRIS, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982