Cases from cite.case.law:

TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC. v. DUKES,, 272 So. 3d 824 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . plaintiff's ability to bring a punitive damages claim in a civil action in Florida is governed by § 768.72 . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." § 768.72 . . . Dukes argued that her motion should be granted because § 768.72(3)(b) specifically includes misconduct . . . found these allegations against non-management personnel to be contrary to the plain language of § 768.72 . . . Dukes's motion failed to meet § 768.72(3)'s requirements for pleading a punitive damages claim. . . .

DOE T. C. v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., 389 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . . § 768.72(2)(a) ). . . .

EVENT DEPOT CORP. v. FRANK a, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Petitioner points to section 768.72(3), Florida Statutes (2018), which provides that: (3) In the case . . . Respondents have argued that Petitioner waived the right to raise challenges under section 768.72(3), . . . In that opinion, the Florida Supreme Court analyzed section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993), and held . . . Four years after Globe Newspaper Co. , the legislature made substantive revisions to section 768.72. . . . See § 768.72(3), Fla. Stat. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. LEDO,, 274 So. 3d 416 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . The order cited Soffer, considered the requirements imposed by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2016 . . . Ledo's proffer "satisfies the legal requirements of section 768.72." . . .

MELFORD, v. KAHANE AND ASSOCIATES,, 371 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . . § 768.72(2) ). . . . Under § 768.72(3), punitive damages may be imposed against a corporation "based on the actions of an . . .

KENNEDY, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION d b a SA DE CV,, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

. . . . § 768.72(2) (2005) ). Plaintiff's amended complaint does not even come close. . . .

MELENDEZ v. EVERSOLE, 263 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

GUNDEL N. v. AV HOMES, INC., 264 So. 3d 304 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Globe Newspaper, 658 So.2d at 519 ("We read section 768.72 to create a substantive legal right not to . . . Newspaper, 658 So.2d at 520 ("[A] plenary appeal cannot restore a defendant's statutory right under section 768.72 . . . jurisdiction lies to review whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

CAT CAY YACHT CLUB, INC. v. C. DIAZ,, 264 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . no written findings identifying any evidence considered to constitute a "reasonable basis" ( section 768.72 . . . requires us to consider "whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Stat. § 768.72 against defendants ...." Levin v. . . . not a green light to add punitive damage claims without following the procedure mandated by section 768.72 . . . Diaz also named Maylene Jimenez, a comptroller of CCYC, as a defendant, but has not served her. § 768.72 . . .

KIS GROUP, LLC, LLC v. MOQUIN,, 263 So. 3d 63 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Because the court failed to follow the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, we . . . the previous ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court was required to conduct a section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that: "In any civil action, no claim for . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." § 768.72 . . . present case, it is clear that the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. v. ROLLAND,, 271 So. 3d 33 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . leave to amend their complaint to state a claim for punitive damages against ISMG pursuant to section 768.72 . . .

AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Jo SMITH DGT,, 263 So. 3d 133 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . limited to determining whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements in section 768.72 . . .

A. LEVIN, n k a RMET v. B. PRITCHARD, III,, 258 So. 3d 545 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Pritchard") motion to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . that the trial court applied the correct law and complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . the trial court's order, alleging that the court failed to comply with the requirements of section 768.72 . . . Because section 768.72 creates "a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damages claim . . . Stat. § 768.72 against defendants ...." . . .

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. RIVERSIDE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. a a o, 252 So. 3d 771 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Sandler , 589 So.2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (en banc) (stating that section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . .

FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICINE SERVICES, LLC, f k a v. K. NEWSHOLME,, 255 So. 3d 348 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . In its order, the court acknowledged that, pursuant to section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, Plaintiffs . . . Rogers , 215 So.3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we held that section 768.72(1)"requires the trial court to . . . We agree with Petitioners that an evaluation of the evidentiary showing required by section 768.72 does . . . In the present case, the trial court cited Holmes in interpreting section 768.72(1)'s "reasonable showing . . . Conclusion "[ Section 768.72(1) ] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim . . .

ROBINS, v. COLOMBO CMC, 253 So. 3d 94 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . order granting Respondents' motion to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . a claim for punitive damages, we limit our review to whether the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . not demonstrated that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Further, the trial court order granting the motion to amend was, consistent with section 768.72(1), based . . . the sufficiency of the evidence rather than compliance with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

Jn JOHNSON, v. NEW DESTINY CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH, INC., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 768.72(2) (2009) and Humana Health Ins. Co. of Fla., Inc. v. . . .

DOUSE, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 768.72(1) - (2) ; see also Gerlach v. Cincinnati Ins. . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a) (internal quotes omitted). . . . Id. at § 768.72(2)(b) (internal quotes omitted). Against this backdrop, Counts I-IV remain. . . .

BURKHART, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, USA,, 884 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2). . . .

CASTILLO, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., 240 So. 3d 88 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . did not include a claim for punitive damages, and no motion to add such a claim pursuant to section 768.72 . . .

H. WORTH, v. ESTATE OF STERN,, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . punitive damages, failed to apply the correct law, i.e., the procedural standards set forth in section 768.72 . . .

J. C. v. STATE, 233 So. 3d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

. . . See § 768.72(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FOR CSFB HEAT v. TRANUMN D, 247 So. 3d 567 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Savage , 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987), superseded by statute on other grounds , § 768.72, Fla. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY USA v. R. ALLEN Sr. FOR ESTATE OF L. ALLEN,, 228 So. 3d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Chapter 99-225, section 22, Laws of Florida, amended section 768.72(2)(b), Florida Statutes, to require . . . McFarland & Sons, Inc., 815 So.2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. Stat. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. EVERS,, 232 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 n.9 (Fla. 2003); and then citing §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. . . .

FETLAR, LLC, v. SUAREZ,, 230 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . failed to make the proffer required to assert such claims against corporate defendants under section 768.72 . . . they included in the body of their motion the facts asserted to meet the proffer required by section 768.72 . . . petitioner/defendants, and (2) the lack of allegations and evidence or proffers directed to section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(3) The plaintiffs sued the four limited liability companies that are the petitioners in . . . Three subparagraphs of section 768.72(3) state the factual prerequisites for establishing punitive damages . . .

H. LEINBERGER v. MAGEE,, 226 So. 3d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that a punitive damages claim is permitted only . . . comport with the procedural requirements for entertaining and ruling on a motion to amend under section 768.72 . . .

OWENS- BENNIEFIELD, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,, 258 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 768.72(2)(a). . . . .” § 768.72(2)(b). . . .

IN RE KRAZ, LLC, LLC, v., 570 B.R. 389 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . . § 768.72(2), Fla. Stat. . Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. N. Am. . . .

BISTLINE, M. D. E. M. D. P. A. v. ROGERS, M. D., 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2016), provides in relevant part: “In any civil action, no claim . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 768.72 . . . We specifically noted that, because section 768.72 creates a substantive right, the abuse of discretion . . . Section 768.72(1) “create[s] a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damages claim . . . We agree with Petitioners that an evaluation of the evi-dentiary showing required by section 768.72 does . . .

IN RE A. BAVELIS, A. v., 571 B.R. 278 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2017)

. . . . § 768.72(2). . . .

M. VARNEDORE, M. D. v. E. COPELAND, o b o Ad K. C. F. J. L. S. M. M. D. v. E. o b o Ad K. C. F. J. L. S., 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(1) provides that defendants in civil actions shall be free from claims of punitive damages . . . or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” § 768.72 . . . Id. at § 768.72(2)(b) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Id. at § 768.72(1); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f). . . .

HERNANDO HMA, LLC, d b a f k a v. T. ERWIN, Jr., 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Avante Group, Inc., 900 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which, pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . . See § 768.72(3), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . whether Respondent’s punitive damages claim satisfied the applicable standard set forth in section 768.72 . . . the complaint, Petitioner argued that Respondent's claim of "gross negligence” pursuant to section 768.72 . . . Respondent’s motion to amend also cited the appropriate version of section 768.72 and acknowledged that . . . on Despain because that decision was based on a prior version of the punitive damages statute, see § 768.72 . . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, Petitioner made no such argument below. . . .

WG EVERGREEN WOODS SH, LLC, LLC, LLC, AOC VTR LLC f k a LLC v. A. FARES, L., 207 So.3d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . That statute, like the more general punitive damage statute, section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2015 . . . under the pertinent evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by [section 768.72 . . . current, amended rule requires a hearing as' a matter of right because those cases analyzed only section 768.72 . . .

FAITH FREIGHT FORWARDING CORPORATION, v. ANIAS,, 206 So.3d 753 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . .” § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

TILTON LLC, v. WROBEL,, 198 So. 3d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. 'Stat. (2015). . . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that a claim for punitive damages will not be permitted . . . Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Pursuant to section 768.72, a proffer of evidence . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

CAMPBELL v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . mandatory language in “[pjresuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by court”), and § 768.72 . . .

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d b a St. v. BYERS- McPHEETERS Jr. M. D. J. H. P. A. Em- P. A., 201 So. 3d 669 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . 520 (Fla.1995). ' The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . on whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72 . . . Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a heightened standard for imposing punitive damages . . .

TRG DESERT INN VENTURE, LTD. v. BEREZOVSKY,, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . review is limited to whether the trial court conformed to the procedural requirements ■ of section 768.72 . . . entity (that is, whether Berezovsky had made the requisite evidentiary showing required by section 768.72 . . . a punitive damages claim to proceed when the essential requirements of law, as embodied in' section 768.72 . . . inquiry is limited to whether the trial court conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . While section 768.72(3) requires a specific evidentiary showing that TRG, a legal entity, either (i) . . .

VALLADARES, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., 197 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016)

. . . legislatively established permissive scope of punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 768.72 . . . punitive damages under the negligence count in his original complaint in an attempt to comply with section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72 pertains only to a demand for punitive damages. . . .

KONDELL, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., 187 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 768.72) (noting that plaintiff could bring a common law fraud claim challenging the conduct prohibited . . .

PATON, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016)

. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .

SAP AMERICA, INC. v. ROYAL FLOWERS, INC., 187 So. 3d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . court’s order allowing a punitive damages claim to proceed when the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . Because the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, and we are not permitted . . .

SOFFER, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016)

. . . add a demand for punitive damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) and section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(1), titled “Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages,” states in pertinent . . . Section 768.72(1) reveals a clear legislative intent for defendants to be free from claims for punitive . . . punitive damages mirror the statutory directive as to proof of punitive damages as set forth in section 768.72 . . . Reynolds was “personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” § 768.72(2), Fla. . . .

BAILEY, LLC LLC LLC v. S. ST. LOUIS, D. O. W. M. D. EFO L. P. EFO LLC LLC LLC LLC EFO LP,, 196 So. 3d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “[a] defendant may be held liable for punitive . . . despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.” § 768.72 . . . conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.” § 768.72 . . .

PETRI POSITIVE PEST CONTROL, INC. a v. CCM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. a d b a, 174 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . “(W]e read section 768.72 as creating a positive legal right in a party not to be subjected to financial . . .

GOODIN J. v. BANK OF AMERICA N. A., 114 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Stat. § 768.72(2). . . . . § 768.72(3). . . . .” § 768.72(2)(a). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting . . . § 768.72. . . . The Goodins contend that the punitive damages provisions of § 768.72 et seq. do not apply to this case . . .

BROWN v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.72(2); Myers v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201, 1215 (11th Cir.2010). . . .

TILLMAN, v. C. R. BARD, INC., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b). . . .

MONTOYA, XI v. PNC BANK, N. A., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.72. . . .

L. CASE R. E. v. B. NEWMAN, B. Ni s a d b a, 154 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2014), provides in part: (1)In any civil action, no claim for punitive . . .

K. DOOLITTLE a k a v. SHUMER,, 152 So. 3d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Petitioner then filed a motion pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2013), for leave to amend . . .

WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC. a v. K. LILES,, 148 So. 3d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 768.72(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); Chrysler Corp. v. Wolmer, 499 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1986). . . .

SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. v. MU OZ,, 146 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Subsections 768.72(2) and (8), Florida Statutes (2013), specify: (2) A defendant may be held liable for . . . proffer evidence satisfying any of the three categories of corporate involvement established in section 768.72 . . .

STO CORP. a v. GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. a a Of a USA a, 146 So. 3d 534 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097,1099 (Fla.1987), super-ceded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .

WINN- DIXIE STORES, INC. LLC, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, f. k. a. a LLC, v. a LLC, v., 746 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.72(2). “ ‘Intentional misconduct’ means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS VIRGINIA, INC. U. S. v. CASTRO,, 134 So. 3d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . The amendment to allow a claim for punitive damages Section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes creates a . . . Thus, section 768.72(1) provides “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted . . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . This does not comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72. . . .

LEASON, v. FARESE,, 133 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2013). We deny the petition and write to clarify. . . . Because the trial court followed the proper procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes . . .

EAGLE FL VI SPE, LLC v. CYPRESS CREEK PLAZA, LLC, D. T A, 128 So. 3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. HOY,, 136 So. 3d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . which would provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of [punitive] damages” as required by section 768.72 . . .

E. BLACK, Jr. H. v. KERZNER INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, a a a a a, 958 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 768.72(2)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b)). . . . Stat. § 768.72(3)); see also Koutsouradis v. . . . Delta Air Lines, Inc., 427 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir.2005) (“Section 768.72(3) provides that punitive . . .

M. MIKESELL, v. FIA CARD SERVICES, N. A. N. A., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 768.72(1). Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. . . .

GUTIERREZ, CMG De De La La v. RUBIO a k a, 126 So. 3d 320 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72 . . .

F. NEGRETE, E. Ow, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, B. v., 927 F. Supp. 2d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . . § 768.72; Hialeah Automotive, LLC v. Basidto, 22 So.3d 586, 590 (Fla.Dist.Ct. . . .

J. MORANO, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,, 928 F. Supp. 2d 826 (D.N.J. 2013)

. . . . § 768.72(2). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . .

CORONADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. La CORTE,, 103 So. 3d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . La Corte to comply with the procedure applicable to employers and corporate defendants under section 768.72 . . . constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the loss, damages, or injury suffered by the claimant. § 768.72 . . . directors of the Association — is, without more, misconduct of the Association for purposes of section 768.72 . . . rather than the specific and heightened rules of imposition established by the Legislature in section 768.72 . . . Section 768.72(3)(b) applies to “officers, directors, or managers of the employer, principal, corporation . . .

SOFFER, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 106 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Pursuant to section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2005), a defendant may be held liable for punitive damages . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, v. AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, LLC,, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), superceded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . . holding of Martin-Johnson, Inc. with regard to punitive damage claims in light of the adoption of section 768.72 . . .

MASON, v. JANSSEN,, 113 So. 3d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . dismiss claims do not qualify for review by certiorari.”), superseded on other grounds by statute, § 768.72 . . .

WINN- DIXIE STORES, INC. v. BIG LOTS STORES, INC. v. I, LLC,, 886 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 768.72(2). “ ‘Intentional misconduct’ means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness . . .

E. BUSHONG, v. M. PEEL,, 85 So. 3d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . .

RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. J. PHILLIPS, J. R. L. J. K., 110 So. 3d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . 768.737 provides, “Where punitive damages are available as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding, ss. 768.72 . . .

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. v. EIDISSEN,, 69 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . damage claims does not extend to reviewing the sufficiency of eviden-tiary determinations under section 768.72 . . . while certiorari review is appropriate to determine whether the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

In FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 807 F. Supp. 2d 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 768.72(2); see In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. . . . Stat. § 768.72 “is clear enough on its face to be applied without turning to potentially superseded case . . .

FL- CARROLLWOOD CARE, LLC, a k a FL- LLC LLC LLC L. a k a H. a k a v. GORDON, Sr., 72 So. 3d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See §§ 400.023(1), .0237, .0238; 768.72, Fla. . . .

In JOHNSON, L. v. LLC, a, 453 B.R. 433 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Introduction The provision in section 768.72, Florida Statutes, that no claim for punitive damages shall . . . The Trustee contends that section 768.72’s pleading requirements do not apply in federal court. . . . Section 768.72, of course, eliminates that tactical advantage in Florida state court. . . . No. 15. . § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). . Id. . Id. . Adv. Doc. No. 19. . Hanna v. . . . Cohen, 184 F.3d at 1297. . § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat. . Id. . Porter v. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. OKEN, M. D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)

. . . appropriate to determine whether a court has conducted the eviden-tiary inquiry required by section 768.72 . . . See Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1099, superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. . . . unavailable to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72 . . . jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . . claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

WEBSTER, v. MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 57 So. 3d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . court may reconsider the plaintiffs motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72 . . .

BELLE GLADE CHEVROLET- CADILLAC BUICK PONTIAC OLDSMOBILE, INC. v. FIGGIE,, 54 So. 3d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes (2009) (emphasis added), provides that “[a] defendant may be held . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. C. MARTIN, R., 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes, requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear . . .

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. v. DOE a, 44 So. 3d 230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . King, 658 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section 768.72 creates . . . Although the court in Globe declined to interpret section 768.72 to permit certiora-ri review to test . . . Thus, the procedure mandated by section 768.72 must be followed, and failure to adhere to that procedure . . . Section 768.72 provides in pertinent part: (2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only . . . As previously stated, section 768.72(1) provides that damages shall not be permitted unless there is . . .

HOLDEN, v. BOBER, M. D. Gu, M. D. W. M. D. P. A. d b a d b a, 39 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . 2005) (“When a trial court is determining if a plaintiff has made a ‘reasonable showing’ under section 768.72 . . .

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP. v. BANCO ESPIRITO SANTO INTERNATIONAL,, 38 So. 3d 874 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . codified the definition of “gross negligence” (as a predicate for a punitive damages claim) in section 768.72 . . .

MEE INDUSTRIES, A v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, A, 608 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 768.72(2) (2005). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . In this case, the clear and convincing standard of proof required under § 768.72 is determinative. . . .

MYERS, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 768.72(2). . . .

In LELI, Jr. d b a RL L. Jr. d b a RL v. P. A. MLB LLC, LLC, LLC, LLC,, 420 B.R. 568 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Section 768.72(2) of the Florida Statute provides: (2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages . . . Stat. § 768.72(2) (2009). . . . Pursuant to Section 768.72 (2009), in order to be held directly liable for punitive damages, a plaintiff . . . Section 768.72(3) of the Florida Statute provides: (3) In the case of an employer, principal, corporation . . . Stat. § 768.72(3) (2009). . . .

HOGAN, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Pursuant to § 768.72, Florida Statutes, punitive damages on the common law claims under Counts IV — VII . . . despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. § 768.72 . . . conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct. § 768.72 . . .

OKEN, M. D. a v. WILLIAMS,, 23 So. 3d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . relief to review an order denying a petitioners request to add punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72 . . . dismissed, 659 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1995), the district court ruled that the procedure mandated by section 768.72 . . . The plain meaning of section 768.72 now requires a plaintiff to provide the court with a reasonable evidentiary . . . To allow punitive damages claims to proceed as before would render section 768.72 meaningless. . . . Furthermore, a plenary appeal cannot restore a defendant’s statutory right under section 768.72 to be . . .

WAYNE FRIER HOME CENTER OF PENSACOLA, INC. v. CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, L. P. M. M., 16 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . To plead a claim for punitive damages, a party must comply with section 768.72, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 768.72(1) provides that in any civil action no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted . . . Section 768.72(2) provides that after a claim for punitive damages is made, a defendant may be held liable . . . In the case of an employer, a principal, corporation or other legal entity, section 768.72(3) provides . . . See § 768.72(3)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. . . .

In FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. v. Co. No. JFK, 647 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . . § 768.72. . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(a). . . . Id. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . Stat. § 768.72(2)(b). . . . The White Construction line of cases predates the 1999 amendment to section 768.72 quoted above in the . . .

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a v. HALL- EDWARDS,, 5 So. 3d 786 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . remedy to determine whether the trial court has conformed to the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

R. LEAVINS, B. LLC. v. CRYSTAL,, 3 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . the complaint titled “Claim for I mitive Damages,” on the grounds that this claim violated section 768.72 . . . “[Section 768.72 has created a substantive legal right not to be subject to a punitive damage claim until . . . Petitioners note that Respondent failed to follow the proper procedures in section 768.72(1), Florida . . . See King, 658 So.2d at 520 (noting that the failure to follow the procedure set out in section 768.72 . . . the procedur requirements of sec-tiot 768.72, allowii Re;- pondent to skip a stej and allege a claim . . .

STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC LLC LLC STK LLC LLC, v. ULRICH,, 7 So. 3d 582 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . certiorari is “to determine whether a court has conducted the evidentiary inquiry required by section 768.72 . . . record before us demonstrates that the circuit court comported with the procedural requirements section 768.72 . . . limited to determining whether the circuit court adhered to the procedural requirements of section 768.72 . . .

HIALEAH AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, d b a v. BASULTO, 22 So. 3d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2004); First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. . . .

CRADLE TO CRAYONS CHILDCARE CENTER, INC. v. RAMOS M. R. a, 999 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . allowing appellees to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages without complying with section 768.72 . . . Because the appellants waived their rights under section 768.72(1) by failing to appear, we affirm. . . . Section 768.72(1) provides in pertinent part that no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless . . . “However, a defendant’s right to relief under section 768.72 is a right that can be waived by failing . . . (“The procedural rights afforded by-section 768.72 can be waived by a failure to object.”). . . .

BURGESS, v. PFIZER, INC., 990 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

BERTONI, v. STOCK BUILDING SUPPLY, f k a f k a, 989 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . claim for punitive damages, because the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing under section 768.72 . . .

SHOTTS, v. OP WINTER HAVEN, INC. Re a k a C. a k a, 988 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

CAPCO PROPERTIES, LLC. v. MONTEREY GARDENS OF PINECREST CONDOMINIUM,, 982 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . accounting where none has been pled or has ordered premature punitive damage discovery under section 768.72 . . . See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2003); Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). . . . In this case, by not successfully asserting a statutory basis like section 768.72, the issue of personal . . .

INC. v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 768.72, as limited by Fla. . . . Stat. § 768.72[sic] therefore that claim should not be allowed to proceed and should be dismissed and . . . Stat. § 768.72(2) permits an award of punitive damages "if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing . . . Stat. 768.72(1) states, in relevant part, that: The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to . . .