that the requirements of section 768.72(1) have been met. See Henn v. Sandler, 589 So.2d 1334, 1335-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“That finding necessarily includes a legal determination that the kind of claim in suit is one which allows for punitive damages under our law. Thus, to that extent, the legal sufficiency of , the punitive damage pleading is also in issue in the section 768.72 setting.”). Accordingly, we should review a trial court’s order granting or denying a motion to amend to state a claim for punitive damages de novo. We are of the view that the standard that applies to determine whether a reasonable basis has been shown to plead a claim for punitive damages should be similar to the standard that is applied to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action. See Holmes (<HOLDING>). Within the framework of this standard, we
holding that the trial court erred in looking beyond the allegations of the complaint to determine whether a duty to defend arose holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable