TICO Insurance v. Schonning (960 So. 2d 6, 2005)

PER CURIAM.

TICO Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment entered against it, following the striking of its pleadings for discovery violations. Because the pleadings were struck in the absence of an evidentia-ry hearing, we reverse. See Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993)(adopting six factors that must be considered before deciding case warrants imposition of severe sanctions). See also Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So.2d 519, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(“Where, as here, there is no indication that the trial court considered [the Kozel ] factors, ... reversal has been required.”); Rose v. Clinton, 575 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(“The trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe sanctions for non-compliance with discovery absent an order ‘finding that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard [of the discovery orders].’ ” (footnote omitted)) (quoting Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1990)).

Reversed.