Bank of America, N.A. v. Colombo

329 So.3d 260 (Mem)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioner,

v.Ugo COLOMBO, et al., Respondents.

No. 3D21-1909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 24, 2021

Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, and Alan M. Pierce and Frank P. Cuneo, for petitioner.

Crabtree & Auslander, LLC, and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, Linda A. Wells, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for respondents.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Bank of America, N.A., seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order granting Ugo Colombo ("Colombo") leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against Bank of America. We deny the petition.

The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2021). Colombo proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages against Bank of America, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that Colombo "proffered a reasonable evidentiary basis for a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that such damages are warranted." Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari and, in doing so, conclude that the arguments raised by Bank of America lack merit. See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing that the scope of an appellate court's certiorari review of an order granting a motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the sufficiency of the...