Gomes v. Maniglia, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1486 (Fla. 3rd DCA July 9, 2025):

The plaintiff sued his stepbrother under the vulnerable adult statute, asserting that the stepbrother had exploited the plaintiff for his personal benefit and for the benefit of the defendant’s mother (the vulnerable adult’s stepmother).

Four years into the litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of an order determining a reasonable basis for claiming punitive damages. The plaintiff’s motion purported to set forth a detailed proffer of evidence in support of punitive damages. Rather than attaching the proposed amended complaint to the punitive damages motion, the plaintiff simply attached a copy of his initial complaint to the motion.

When a plaintiff sues under a statute that authorizes recovery of punitive damages but does not provide the procedure for pleading such entitlement, the plaintiff must comply with the requirements for seeking punitive damages set forth in Section 768.72 and Rule 1.190.

To that end, a plaintiff who wishes to recover punitive damages in a civil case must first seek and obtain leave of court to assert such a claim. The trial court must strike a punitive damage claim asserted in the initial complaint as unauthorized, notwithstanding the likelihood that the court will subsequently authorize the plaintiff to amend the initial complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.

Further, when a plaintiff moves to amend his or her complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must provide the trial court and the defendant with a copy of the proposed amended complaint that includes a reasonable basis for the recovery of such damages. The plaintiff’s failure to file a proposed amended complaint that provides a reasonable basis for recovering punitive damages is reversible error.

Here, while the trial court properly struck the punitive damages claim from the initial complaint because it was not authorized, it committed reversible error by subsequently treating the initial complaint as the proposed amended complaint and granting the punitive damages motion. Without the benefit of a proposed amended complaint, the trial court could not undertake its gatekeeper role to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages, and it would be unreasonably difficult for the defendants to prepare and argue for their position.