Goldman v. Lewin
In an appeal from a non-final order permitting amendment to add punitive damages claims arising from abuse-of-process, conspiracy, and malicious-prosecution claims among feuding relatives, the Third DCA held that its prior decision in Cat Cay Yacht Club v. Diaz he evidence supporting a section 768.72(1) proffer—has been superseded by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co. The court affirmed the punitive damages amendment as to two defendants but reversed as to a third, holding that filing suit without probable cause or personal knowledge, standing alone, does not establish 'intentional misconduct' under section 768.72(2).
Key facts
- Goldman appealed a non-final order from the trial court permitting amendment to add punitive damages claims based on abuse-of-process, conspiracy, and malicious-prosecution theories arising from litigation between feuding relatives.
- The Third DCA held that its prior Cat Cay Yacht Club decision requiring trial-court findings for section 768.72(1) proffers has been superseded by the Florida Supreme Court's Perlmutter decision.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion expressly declares that the Third District's long-cited Cat Cay Yacht Club findings requirement for punitive damages amendments no longer survives after Perlmutter, removing a frequently used ground for… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.