Florida courts have a rule that says you can’t get punitive damages if you’re seeking fair treatment (equitable relief) in court. Some courts think this rule is outdated and believe that you should be able to get punitive damages even if you’re seeking fair treatment. This has caused a divide in the courts. This article argues that Florida should make a clear rule allowing punitive damages in fair treatment cases. Some cases, like Hoppe v. Hoppe, support the old rule, but they don’t explain why the old rule is still good. The second part of this article will explain why the old rule is wrong and why punitive damages should still be available in fair treatment cases. In some Florida court cases, judges said that they can’t give extra punishment (like making someone pay extra money) unless there’s a law that says they can. One case did explain why they said that, but others just repeated the same idea without saying why. The courts in Florida have had different opinions about whether a judge in a case involving both legal and equitable claims can award punitive damages. One court, called Orkin, said that only a jury in a law court can do this. But another court, called Glusman, disagreed and said that a judge in a mixed case can award both compensatory and punitive damages as well as any equitable relief. This means that the judge can decide on punishment in addition to regular compensation in certain cases. This is a big change from the old rule and lets judges have more power in these situations. The I.H.P. Corp. sued 210 Central Park South Corp. for an injunction, but the court also awarded punitive damages. This was unusual because in the past, New York courts did not usually give punitive damages when someone was seeking equitable relief (like an injunction). But the court said that old rules shouldn’t stop them from giving fair relief. They said that previous cases hadn’t really explained why this was a rule, and they didn’t agree with the reasons people gave for it. The court rejected the argument that it couldn’t award punitive damages because it sits in both law and equity. It also disagreed that punitive damages are against equitable principles. The court said that traditional rules shouldn’t stop it from granting punitive damages if it’s necessary for the case. It also said that traditional equitable remedies might not always be enough, and sometimes punitive damages are needed to stop bad behavior. The court rejected the argument that asking for fairness in a legal case means giving up the right to ask for extra money as punishment. They said this rule is old and doesn’t make sense anymore. The court also said that other courts have already agreed with this, and it’s time for them to do the same. They also said that even though there is still a right to a jury trial, it shouldn’t be a problem to have both types of claims in the same case. The case Orkin Exterm. Co. v. Truly Nolen, Inc. showed that courts have changed their rules about when punitive damages can be awarded. This means that in some cases, a judge may decide to give extra money to the person who wins a lawsuit, in order to punish the losing party. Other cases, like Hoppe v. Hoppe and Insurance Field Services, have also affected how punitive damages are awarded. These are three lawyers who specialize in different areas of law and have a lot of experience. John Pankauski focuses on cases involving wills, trusts, and financial losses. Laurence A. Steckman works on cases involving stocks and business disputes. Robert E. Conner provides expert advice for trials involving investments. They have all written and published a lot of articles and books about the law. In simpler terms, the Trial Lawyers Section is all about teaching its members to do their duty and help the community, making the legal system better, and advancing the study of law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/punitive-damages-against-fiduciaries-leaving-hoppe-behind-and-allowing-punitive-damages-where-equitable-relief-is-sought-part-i/
Leave a Reply