Florida Justices Back Punitive Damages Change
The Supreme Court in 2020 directed a committee of The Florida Bar to draw up the rule, which then needed approval by justices.
January 07, 2022 at 10:25 AM
3 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday approved a change that opponents say could put up a roadblock to punitive damages in lawsuits.
Justices, in a 6-1 opinion, backed a rule change that will enable attorneys to appeal judges' rulings that allow lawsuits to be amended to include claims for punitive damages. The appeals would be filed while the lawsuits are pending.
The Supreme Court in 2020 directed a committee of The Florida Bar to draw up the rule, which then needed approval by justices.
The Florida Defense Lawyers Association, which is made up of attorneys who defend clients in civil lawsuits, supported the change, saying in a filing that it "will help protect defendants from invasive discovery into their personal and/or corporate finances where a claim for punitive damages should have never been allowed."
But Justice Jorge Labarga and plaintiffs' attorneys opposed the change, with Labarga writing Thursday that the "unfortunate consequence of this drastic change in appellate procedure will be unnecessary and unwarranted delays in civil actions with claims for punitive damages."
"Given this additional delay, it is also not unreasonable to anticipate that some claimants in civil cases may reluctantly forgo meritorious claims for punitive damages in order to avoid delay in bringing their cases to a final resolution," Labarga wrote. "Of particular concern are tort cases involving personal injury, where claims for much needed medical and economic relief will stall until the question of punitive damages is resolved. Access to our judicial system with claims authorized by law should not be impeded by unnecessary delay and resulting additional expense."
Punitive damages can be awarded in civil lawsuits on top of damages for such things as medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. Punitive damages are not awarded in most cases, but they can involve large amounts of money.
Thursday's majority opinion gave little explanation about why the court supported the rule change, which will take effect April 1. Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson, Carlos Muniz, John Couriel and Jamie Grosshans were in the majority.
The rule deals with what are known as "interlocutory" appeals of judges' decisions to either allow or reject adding claims for punitive damages to lawsuits.
A report last year from the Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee said the Supreme Court had noted in its request for the rule change that "there is currently no avenue for the immediate review of the trial court's determination of whether there has been a showing by record evidence that would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages" — though a more-restricted process, known as filing a petition for a "writ of certiorari," has existed.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlew of Litigation Hurdles Ahead in Case of Alleged Pro Sports Sexual Harassment
$2.3M in Legal Fees Sought After Long South Florida Feud Over $127K
Trending Stories
- 1What Qualities Will Distinguish Good from Great Service In 2025?
- 2The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
- 3Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 4Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
- 5'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250