Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases and Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases - Joint Report No. 19-01
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC19-185
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2019

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-185 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES AND 
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CONTRACT AND BUSINESS 
CASES—JOINT REPORT NO. 19-01. 
 
August 29, 2019 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 
and the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and 
Business Cases (Committees) have submitted a proposed new model verdict form 
to be included in section 451 of their respective sets of standard jury instructions 
pertaining to Fiduciary Duty and ask that the Court authorize the proposed verdict 
form for publication and use.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. 
Const. 
 
The Committees propose new verdict form 451.14 (Model Form of Verdict 
for Breach of Fiduciary Duty) to accompany instructions 451.4 (Existence of 
Fiduciary Duty Disputed) and 451.5 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).  The Committees 
- 2 - 
 
published the proposed verdict form in the September 1, 2018, issue of The Florida 
Bar News.  No comments were received.   
Having considered the Committees’ joint report and joint supplemental 
report, we modify the proposed verdict form and authorize the modified form for 
publication and use.  The Court modifies question one of the Committees’ 
proposed verdict form to more closely track instruction 451.4 (Existence of 
Fiduciary Duty Disputed), which instructs the jury regarding the factual question 
of whether a fiduciary relationship has been established.  See Gracey v. Eaker, 837 
So. 2d 348, 354 nn.7, 9 (Fla. 2002) (“The existence, vel non, of a duty is a question 
of law and is appropriate for an appellate court to review. . . . [Whether] a fiduciary 
relationship was formed [is a] determination[] . . . for the finder of fact to make at 
trial.”).   
Having considered the Committees’ reports, the Court authorizes the verdict 
form, as modified and as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, for publication 
and use.  New language is indicated by underlining.  In authorizing the publication 
and use of this verdict form, the Court expresses no opinion on its correctness and 
reminds all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting 
an additional or alternative verdict form nor contesting the legal correctness of the 
verdict form.  The Court further cautions all interested parties that any Notes on 
Use associated with the proposed verdict form reflect only the opinion of the 
- 3 - 
 
Committees and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their 
correctness or applicability.  The verdict form as set forth in the appendix shall be 
effective when this opinion becomes final. 
It is so ordered. 
 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and 
MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions — 
Civil Cases and Contract and Business Cases 
  
Honorable Paul Lee Huey, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury  
Instructions in Contract and Business Cases, Tampa, Florida; Laura K. Whitmore, 
Chair, Tampa, Florida, and Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Vice Chair and Subcommittee 
Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, 
Miami, Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, Mikalla Andies Davis 
and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Liaisons, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
- 4 - 
 
APPENDIX 
FORM 451.14  MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR BREACH OF 
FIDUCIARY DUTY 
We, the jury, return the following verdict:  
1. 
Did a relationship exist between (claimant) and (defendant) in 
which (claimant) put [his] [her] [its] trust in (defendant) to protect (claimant’s) 
[financial or property interests] [secrets] [confidences] [private information] 
and (defendant) accepted that trust? 
 
YES   
 
 NO   
 
 
If your answer to question 1 is YES, proceed to question 2. If your 
answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for (defendant) on this claim, and 
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and 
return it to the courtroom. 
2. 
Did (defendant) breach a fiduciary duty owed to (claimant) that 
was a legal cause of damage to (claimant)? 
 
YES   
 
 NO   
 
 
If your answer to question 2 is YES, your verdict is for (claimant) on this 
claim, and you should proceed to question 3. If your answer to question 2 is 
NO, your verdict is for (defendant) on this claim, and you should not proceed 
further except to date and sign this verdict form and return it to the 
courtroom. 
3. 
What is the total amount of  
 
damage sustained by (claimant)? 
 
 
$  
 
. 
SO SAY WE ALL, this   
 day of  
 
, 2 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOREPERSON 
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 451.14 
- 5 - 
 
1. 
Question 1 should be given only if necessary. If there is no dispute as 
to existence of the fiduciary duty, question 1 should not be given.