Globe Sec. Systems Co. v. Mayor's Jewelers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-3011,83-3011
• Citation: 458 So.2d 828
• Parties: GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellant, v. MAYOR'S JEWELERS, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Mayor's, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 828

458 So.2d 828

GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellant, v. MAYOR'S JEWELERS, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Mayor's, Appellee.

No. 83-3011.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Nov. 6, 1984.

Magill, Reid & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellant.

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel and Kendall B. Coffey and Mark D. Bloom, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Mayor's, a jewelry store, was burglarized after appellant's security guard, who was assigned to watch the premises, left his post without permission in the early morning hours to spend time with his girlfriend. Appellant was hired specifically to protect against "smash-and-grab" burglaries, the same type of crime which caused the loss in this case. A jury found that Globe breached the contract and awarded compensatory damages of $45,188.21. There is no serious challenge to the breach of contract finding or to the award of actual damages, both of which were firmly established. The main issue raised by this appeal is whether an award of $135,000 in punitive damages is sustainable on the facts. We think not and reverse the punitive damages award.

Mayor's alleged in its complaint that (1) Globe breached its contract to guard the premises continuously during the hours between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on the night of the burglary, and (2) Globe was "grossly negligent" in that it failed to have a guard present at the premises, failed to effect a method for monitoring its on-duty guard, and employed a guard who might not have been hired if a routine background investigation had been conducted.

By special interrogatory verdict the jury found:

I. VERDICT ON BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM

(__) A. We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, MAYOR'S JEWELERS, and assess its damages at $45,188.21.

II. VERDICT ON NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

(__) A. We, the jury, find for Defendant, GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS. (If you find for GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS on this claim, do not answer B, but date and sign this form and return it to the Clerk).

(__) B. We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, MAYOR'S JEWELERS, and assess punitive damages in the amount of $135,000.00.

Dated this 4 day of October, 1983.

/s/ Leonard Morgen

As Foreman/Forewoman

The jury awarded no additional compensatory damages to support the negligence-based punitive damages award.

The rule in this district is that where an award of compensatory damages is based on one cause of action, and an award of punitive damages is based on an entirely separate cause of action, the award of punitive damages will not stand unless the jury also makes an express finding of separate compensatory damages in support of the punitive damages claim, whether actual or nominal. See Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So.2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 415 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1982); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 889 (Fla.), 364 So.2d 891 (Fla.1978). The rule derives from the general principle that "exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable in an action of tort unless actual damages are shown...." Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So.2d 622, 625 (Fla.1977) (citing McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221, 222 (1943)). Unless there is a separate finding of actual or nominal damages--an essential element of the tort--the tort is not...