Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages Section 768.72 provides for the amendment of a complaint either through evidence in the record or “proffered by the claimant.” As the statute suggests, a proffer of evidence in support of a punitive damage claim is sufficient and a formal evidentiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the parties and indicates that its decision to grant the motion is based upon a review of the file and the respective documents eS) eT he United:States District Court for the Middle‘Disttict of Florida-has spoken-clearly of == 7 the nature of a proffer in support of a motion to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages in Royal Marco Point I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. OBE Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 2609367 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2010). As the Court stated: : So | es It is important to emphasize, at the outset, the limited nature of the review a court may undertake in considering the sufficiency of an evidentiary proffer under Fla. Stat. §768.72. Courts reviewing such proffers have recognized that “a ‘proffer’ mm according to traditional notions of the term, connotes merely -an ‘offer’ of evidence and neither the term standing alone nor the statute itself calls for an adjudication of the underlying veracity of that which is submitted, much less for countervailing evidentiary submissions.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So.2d 637, 642 (Fla. Sth DCA 2005) (quoting State of Wisconsin Investment Board v. Plantation Square Associates, Ltd, 761 F. Supp. 1569, 1581 n. 21 (S.D. Fla. 1991)). Therefore, “an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is offered and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary rule