Hot off the press: a new Florida Supreme Court decision clarifies the standard a trial court must apply in deciding whether a plaintiff has met the burden to assert a claim for punitive damages.
Under Florida law, before a plaintiff may bring a punitive damages claim, the plaintiff must first make an evidentiary showing sufficient for a “reasonable person” to conclude that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence,” as those terms are defined in section 768.72(2).
In Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court addressed both the process for making that showing and the burden of proof a trial court should apply when allowing a party to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim under section 768.72.
The Court held that “[i]n reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence under section 768.72(1) at the pleading stage, the trial court should not apply the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” At this stage, the trial court does not act as a fact-finder. As the Court explained, it “must not weigh the claimant’s evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter,” and in conducting its review it “must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Significantly, the decision makes clear that the defense has no ability to proffer counter-evidence or competing submissions at this stage. The trial court considers only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant in support of the motion for leave to amend in determining whether the threshold is met—seemingly even where the claimant has hand-picked its submissions in a way that overlooks clearly contradictory evidence already in the record.
In sum, the decision aligns with those districts that had taken the more permissive approach, making it easier for a plaintiff to add a punitive damages claim.
For additional information, please contact Ashley Landrum, alandrum@national-law.com.