Amendment of Complaint for Punitive Damages Should Not Be So Easily Granted

In Marshall Milton Corp v. Petit-Homme, No. 3D24-762, 2025 WL 1819149 (Fla. 3d DCA July 2, 2025), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal had the opportunity revisit when a trial court can grant a plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. In Florida, this is done by statute. Pursuant to section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2023), “no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” Section 768.72 “requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper,” which means that the trial court cannot “simply accept[ ] the allegations in a complaint or motion to amend as true.” Napleton's N. Palm Auto Park, Inc. v. Agosto, 364 So. 3d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 610–11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)).

The trial court allowed the plaintiff in the case to amend his complaint to assert punitive damages. However, the appellate court, reviewing that grant de novo, found there was insufficient evidence in the record showing willful, callous, or egregious conduct by defendant in investigating plaintiff's claim and terminating his maintenance and cure benefits. The appellate court set out the factors used to determine whether punitive damages are warranted in maintenance and cure cases and include: 1) the shipowner’s laxness in investigating claim; 2) the termination of benefits in response to seaman's retention of counsel or refusal of settlement offer; and 3) the shipowner’s failure to reinstate benefits after diagnosis of ailment previously not determined medically. After reviewing the evidence proffered, the appellate court found the evidence was insufficient to support plaintiff's claim that his benefits were wrongfully terminated after he retained counsel and declined a settlement offer. The court also found that the plaintiff could not claim that defendant showed laxness by refusing to investigate the impact of injury to plaintiff's index finger where defendant relied on physician's testimony that injury was “remarkably benign” and that potential impairment rating for index finger was five percent . The court also noted that the remaining factor was not at issue in plaintiff's case and thus, reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.

This court again sets out the requirements for trial courts to test the plaintiff’s allegations before granting a motion to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages. This requires the seafarer to provide reasonable evidence of willful, callous, or egregious conduct by the shipowner.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this ruling or wish to discuss this case or one like it further, please feel free to reach out to us at admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.

Proposals for Settlement in Florida Not Easily Set Aside

In Neeld v. Combs, Case No. 5D2023-1803, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 14, 2025), the trial court determined that the parties' settlement agreement was unenforceable, allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his settlement proposal over four months after acceptance based on an alleged mistake the plaintiff had made with regards to settlement amount. However, the appellate court found that a binding settlement agreement was formed where a proposal for settlement was expressly made pursuant to the provisions of section 768.79 and rule 1.442, signed by plaintiff's counsel, e-filed with the court, e-served on defendant's counsel, and timely accepted by defendant in writing. The appellate court found that the settlement agreement could not be set aside based on the fact that proposal for settlement was the product of a unilateral mistake, as an agreement made pursuant to section 768.79 essentially operates as a consent judgment and common law methods for attacking contract formation are not available to unwind those agreements. The appellate court found no legal basis to allow plaintiff to withdraw his proposal for settlement or set aside defendant's acceptance. The argument that plaintiff's counsel lacked authority to settle for stated amount was rejected, because the proposal was signed and served by counsel and notice of service was filed with trial court, showing objective evidence of counsel's authority to make the proposal existed. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff offered no objective evidence supporting his assertion that counsel lacked authority and whether plaintiff subjectively intended a different settlement amount is irrelevant to the analysis.

This case may seem basic, but our office has seen an increase in parties looking to back out of the settlement agreements they enter into, claiming the exact same defenses. If you submit a Proposal for Settlement to the other side and it is accepted, you are bound by that offer. Conversely, if you make an offer for settlement and this is advised to the trial court, it will be upheld, with the possibility of fees and costs being assessed if the settlement agreement is wrongfully repudiated by the offeror or offeree.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to discuss this issue further, please feel free to reach out to us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.

Florida Court Clarifies Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Residents

In Pianezza v. Mia Collection Servs.. LLC, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1784 (Fla. 3d DCA March 6, 2024), an action against non-resident principal and employee of foreign limited liability company alleging claims of fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and conspiracy stemming from LLC's provision of counterfeit merchandise was not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the defendants appealed. The appellate court found that the corporate shield doctrine did not protect defendants from the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction where the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendants committed a tortious act within Florida by directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida in which they allegedly fraudulently misrepresented the authenticity of merchandise sold to the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that the corporate shield doctrine will not operate to bar personal jurisdiction in Florida over an individual defendant that commits a tortious act in Florida, regardless of whether it was on behalf of a corporate employer.

The appellate court also found that defendants' affidavits were insufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to demonstrate why jurisdiction was proper where, although both defendants denied in their declarations that they directed a phone call, text message, or e-mail to anyone in the state of Florida, they qualified these statements by stating they never did so on their own behalf . The qualification by these defendants failed to negate the allegation that they committed tortious acts in Florida by sending and/or directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida. This, the court explained, leaves open the inference that they did direct phone calls, text messages, and/or emails into Florida in their capacity as employees of the LLC. The appellate court also found that principal's declaration as a corporate representative on behalf of LLC contained nothing more than legal conclusions, which plaintiff was not required to refute.

The appellate court therefore found that the trial court properly concluded that sufficient minimum contacts existed because defendants knew plaintiff was located in Florida and, therefore, knew their alleged misrepresentations would impact a Florida resident and would cause injuries in Florida. Thus, these non-resident defendants are required to defend the case brought against them in Florida.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to learn more about the impact of this decision, please feel free to reach out to us at admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or blog@miamimaritimelaw.co.

New Webinar: EMBARC on New SASH Reporting on U.S. Vessels: How Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment is Reported in the Maritime Industry

On December 21, 2023, I created a new Lawline 1-hour CLE on sexual harassment and sexual assault ("SASH") laws for U.S. vessels, You can check it out here at EMBARC on New SASH Reporting on U.S. Vessels: How Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment is Reported in the Maritime Industry and Key Issues for All U.S. Flag Commercial Vessel Operators - Online CLE Course | Lawline. Any questions on the program or want to talk to me, you can email me at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.