Punitive damages can be warranted in business torts, although you are dealing with a much tougher threshold. Typically, the misconduct warranting the punitive damages needs to be intentional, i.e., the defendant had knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and its high probability of damage and engaged in the misconduct anyway. See Fla. Stat. 768.72. This is because “‘the purpose of punitive damages is not to further compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for the wrongful conduct and to deter similar misconduct by it and other actors in the future.’”   See Bistline v. Rogers, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D706a (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017) quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So.2d 483, 486 (Fla. 1999). Thus, an award of punitive damages for a business tort will typically need to require evidence showing fraud, malice, or deliberately outrageous conduct. See Bistline, supra.

A party, however, just cannot come right out of the gate and sue for punitive damages. Rather, a party needs to file a lawsuit and thereafter make an evidentiary proffer supporting the intentional misconduct that it believes gives rise to punitive damages for a business tort. What is plead is an allegation – it is not evidence—and will not support an evidentiary proffer. Again, there needs to be an evidentiary proffer with evidence reasonably showing the basis of the intentional misconduct to support an award for punitive damages.   See Bistline, supra (reversing award of punitive damages because there was not reasonable evidentiary proffer and because trial court based amendment to assert punitive damages on allegations in complaint, which is not evidence).

It is important that a party moving for punitive damages properly make that evidentiary proffer with the court to allow it to amend its complaint to include these damages. This is important in any punitive damages proffer, particularly in business tort disputes where the threshold is greater.  In this manner, the procedural requirements in Florida Statute s. 768.72 are crucial to comply with. Because an impermissible punitive damages award is difficult to remedy on appeal, a defendant will be entitled to certiorari review “to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72…but not the sufficiency of the evidence.” See Bistline, supra, quoting Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909, 910 (Fla. DCA 2006).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Just because you have an agreement to arbitrate does not necessarily mean that every conceivable claim, including those unrelated to the agreement, are subject to arbitration.   For instance, if there are separate agreements—one with an arbitration clause and another without—does not mean that a claim related to the agreement without an arbitration clause will be subject to arbitration per the separate agreement.   There needs to be a “significant relationship” between the agreement containing the arbitration provision and the claim, as best explained as follows:

“[T]he mere coincidence that the parties in dispute have a contractual relationship will ordinarily not be enough to mandate arbitration of the dispute.” Rather, “there must exist a significant relationship between the claim and the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” The Florida Supreme Court has expanded upon the definition of “significant relationship” as follows:

A “significant relationship” between a claim and an arbitration provision does not necessarily exist merely because the parties in the dispute have a contractual relationship. Rather, a significant relationship is described to exist between an arbitration provision and a claim if there is a “contractual nexus” between the claim and the contract. A contractual nexus exists between a claim and a contract if the claim presents circumstances in which the resolution of the disputed issue requires either reference to, or construction of, a portion of the contract. More specifically, a claim has a nexus to a contract and arises from the terms of the contract if it emanates from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship. In contrast, a claim does not have a nexus to a contract if it pertains to the breach of a duty otherwise imposed by law or in recognition of public policy, such as a duty under the general common law owed not only to the contracting parties but also to third parties and the public.

Timber Pines Plaza, LLC v. Zabrzyski, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D587a (Fla. 5^th DCA 2017 (internal citations omitted).

An example of this can be found in the Time Pines Plaza case.   Here, an owner of a shopping outlet mall contracted to sell outparcels of land to a buyer.  The contract for sale contained an arbitration provision.   Thereafter, and prior to closing, the owner issued amended deed restrictions on one of the outparcels that required plans for future construction to be submitted to the owner for pre-approval. The buyer signed an acknowledgment of its receipt of the amended deed restrictions. (There was no arbitration clause in this deed restrictions.)

After closing, the owner sued the buyer arguing that the buyer commenced construction without obtaining plan approval as required by the amended deed restrictions.   The buyer counter-sued with a claim asserting that owner breached the contract for sale.   The owner moved to compel this counterclaim to arbitration based on the arbitration provision in that contract.

The issue was whether the owner’s original claim relating to a breach of the amended deed restrictions had a significant relationship to the contract for sale such that it should have been subject to arbitration. If it should have been, there was an argument that the owner waived the right to arbitrate by initiating the lawsuit.

The court found that no significant relationship existed between the contract for sale and the amended deed restrictions. There was no contractual nexus with the argument that the buyer commenced construction without seeking approval and the contract for sale. The contract for sale contained no obligation regarding commencing construction before obtaining prior approval; this issue was only contained in the amended deed restrictions. “Of course, the instant dispute would not exist had the parties not contracted for the purchase and sale of the North Outparcel, but ‘the mere fact that the dispute would not have arisen but for the existence of the contract and consequent relationship between the parties is insufficient by itself to transform a dispute into one ‘arising out of or relating to’ the agreement.’” Timber Pines Plaza, supra (citation omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Are you interested in learning more about innovative attorney’s fee arrangements that provide value to your business and are outside of the boring, traditional hourly billing model.  If so, check out my ebook on Innovative Attorney’s Fee Arrangements:  Providing Value To YOUR Business Objectives.   You can also check out this ebook for Nook. 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

There are numerous employers that want employees to sign a non-compete, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation agreement (collectively, the “non-compete agreement”).   For good reason, they don’t want to train employees to learn the business’ trade secrets and business practices (e.g., marking strategies, pricing, techniques, customer lists, etc.) only to then compete with the employer and solicit its clients.   The non-compete agreement will allow the employer to move for injunctive relief if a former employee violates the agreement to maintain the status quo and prevent the irreparable harm to the employer.

An example is as follows. In Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D631a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), an employer that engaged in the manufacture and distribution of water treatment chemicals hired an employee. The company trained the employee regarding its practices and provided him with proprietary information such as production costs, customer lists, prospective customer lists, and marketing and pricing information. The employee’s non-compete agreement provided he would not compete with the employer for 18 months after leaving the company and within a 150-mile radius of any of the employer’s facilities. The employee left the company to work for a competitor and the employer moved for a preliminary injunction to enforce the non-compete agreement against the employee.

The trial court denied the employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing. The employer appealed. Because a trial court has discretion in granting or denying an injunction, its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. In this case, the appellate court reversed the trial court finding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the granting of the preliminary injunction.

Non-compete agreements in Florida will be governed by Florida Statute s. 542.335, which is designed to construe restraints on trade and commerce in favor of providing reasonable protection to legitimate business interests. The statute includes a non-exhaustive list of legitimate business interests, such as, trade secrets, valuable confidential information, customer goodwill, substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, specialized training, etc.

A party moving for a preliminary injunction must establish:

• “the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law;
• a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
• that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and
• that the granting of the temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”

Allied Universal Corp., supra.

Importantly, the “breach of a non-compete agreement that threatens a former employer’s goodwill and relationships with its customers, indicates that nothing short of an injunction would prevent this loss.” Allied Universal Corp., supra.

At the evidentiary hearing, the employer established legitimate business interests that it wanted to protect including the employer’s relationship with specific existing and prospective customers. The evidence showed that the employer trained the employee in its production techniques, marketing strategies, and pricing strategies.  Hence, the employer showed it would be irreparably harmed by the employee’s violation of the non-compete agreement—the employer’s business would be harmed if the employee were to use the employer’s customer information, relationships, and marketing strategy in his new employment. This meant that the burden shifted to the employee to establish the absence of an irreparable injury, which the employee was unable to do. For this reason, the appellate court reversed the trial court and remanded with directions for the trial court to grant the temporary injunction.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Do you live in a condominium or in a homeowner’s association? If so, then you know you are governed by a Declaration of Condominium (in the case of condominium unit ownership) or a Declaration of Covenants (in the case of home ownership). Please review these in addition to any amendments that may modify any of the paragraphs or covenants. These are recorded in the official, public records where the condominium or homes are located. So, you can obtain these documents online with ease. If you’re in need of condo insurance or the likes, you can also get that with ease, see condominium policies here.

Declarations are covenants running with the land operating as a contract between the governing association and owners. See Woodside Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Jahren, 806 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2002). For this reason, Declarations are strictly construed, particularly when it comes to restrictive covenants therein, since a Declaration serves as the constitution of the condominium or community. See, Pudit 2 Joint Venture, LLP v. Westwood Gardens Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 169 So.3d 145, 147-48 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2015); Lathan v. Hanover Woods Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 547 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1989).

Sure, there is a statutory scheme relating to condominiums (Florida Statutes Chapter 718) and homeowner’s associations (Florida Statutes Chapter 720). These statutory schemes are certainly important. But, it all generally starts with the governing documents (constitution) of your condominium or community – particularly, the Declaration and all recorded amendments. Before you become crosswise with your association, spend the time to read the Declaration and any amendments.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Insurance coverage disputes are fairly common between an insured and his/her/its insurer.   These are important disputes to an insured, particularly when they have been damaged and their insurer refuses to defend them from a third-party claim or otherwise denies coverage. An insured never wants to be in this position—understandably so. On the other hand, an insurance policy is not designed to cover every single risk under the sun as there are exclusions identified in policies for risks or perils that are not covered.   This ultimately means an insured needs to have an appreciation of those risks or perils not covered (in case he/she/it needs to procure another policy or a policy endorsement to cover certain risks or perils).

There are insurance coverage disputes where the primary focus is on the policy language. The material facts are not in dispute; the dispute is centered on whether the undisputed facts create coverage under the applicable policy. In this instance, the insurance coverage dispute is an issue for the court and not for a jury.

A recent case explains the appellate standard of review in insurance coverage disputes, particularly when the overriding issue has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with the policy language:

We review the instant appeal from a final judgment interpreting the provisions of an insurance policy to determine coverage de novo. Where the facts are not in dispute and the language of an insurance policy is unambiguous and not subject to conflicting inferences, “its construction is for the court, not the jury.” Moreover, even where an ambiguity exists, if the facts are not disputed “it is within the province of the trial judge not the jury to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of law.” Here, because neither a factual dispute nor an ambiguity was demonstrated to exist, the coverage issue raised below should have been decided by the court below and on the record below….

Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Cernogorsky, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D476b (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (internal citations omitted).

If you have questions regarding an insurance policy or you are involved in an insurance coverage dispute, do the prudent thing, consult an attorney that understands insurance.  Insurance is challenging, even for experienced practitioners, so do not assume you can navigate the complicated insurance waters solo.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us: