Turo, Inc. v. Cynthia Mobley, A'Shari Calhoun, Willie Calhoun, Tont'Yona Littles, Alaya Lott-Gray, Darriasha Wimberly, Individually and Cynthia Mobley, as Parent and Natural Guardian of C.C., and Paulo Henrique Simoes de Oliveira

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed an order allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages against Turo, Inc. The court held that the plaintiffs did not make the reasonable evidentiary showing required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes, to support theories of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A party may amend a complaint to assert punitive damages only after making a reasonable showing, through evidence in the record or evidence to be proffered, that provides a reasonable basis for recovery. Appellees failed to make that showing as to Turo.
2. The proffer did not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that Turo engaged in intentional misconduct because it did not establish Turo's actual knowledge of the tire warning light or wrongful conduct, or that Turo intentionally pursued a course of conduct despite knowing of a high probability of injury.
3. The proffer did not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that Turo's conduct constituted gross negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Appellees made the showing required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f), to obtain leave to amend their complaint to add punitive damages.
2. Whether the allegations and proffered evidence provided a reasonable basis to conclude that Turo engaged in intentional misconduct.
3. Whether the allegations and proffered evidence provided a reasonable basis to conclude that Turo was grossly negligent.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded