On June 11, Florida’s litigation landscape shifted significantly when the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Perlmutter vs. Federal Insurance lowered the threshold plaintiffs must meet before trial to pursue punitive damages. The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by former Marvel Entertainment head Isaac Perlmutter against his Palm Beach neighbor and Federal Insurance Co., which resulted in a $50 million jury verdict last November. The ruling resolved conflicting Florida appellate decisions and is expected to increase pressure on insurers to settle high-dollar claims earlier, given that punitive damages are never covered by insurance and are capped at three times compensatory damages under state law.

Brett Carey, elaborated on the increased pressure that insurance carriers will have on their clients. “Insurers defending claims in Florida will need to reassess their early case evaluation protocols, recognizing that the motion to amend is now a far less reliable checkpoint for screening out marginal punitive damages theories,” said Carey.

“Defense lawyers must now be more vigilant in identifying cases with punitive damages potential at the outset and in developing strategies later in litigation, such as aggressive dispositive motions, to address that exposure before trial,” he noted.

The state Supreme Court ruling will impact defendants in lawsuits. They will face early exposure to the discovery of their financial worth, “which is a powerful litigation tool that can create significant settlement pressure,” Carey added. 

Despite the lowered threshold, the ruling preserves some judicial oversight. It emphasized that “the trial court still serves a gatekeeping function and must review the punitive damages request in the context of the underlying claims,” Carey highlighted. 

Other attorneys interviewed for the piece, echoed similar concerns, agreeing that defendants and insurers will find it harder to defeat punitive damages claims early in litigation, though courts retain a narrower gatekeeping role focused on whether a “reasonable evidentiary basis” supports such claims.

To view the full article, click here.