Florida’s courts continue to shape the post-reform litigation landscape, with several recent decisions carrying important implications for insurers evaluating exposure, settlement strategy, and defense costs.
Punitive Damages Remain an Evolving Area of Exposure. In Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a plaintiff seeking leave to assert punitive damages is not required to satisfy the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard applicable at trial. Instead, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must make the statutory showing of a reasonable basis for recovery. The decision may make punitive damages claims procedurally easier to pursue and reinforces the importance of identifying potential punitive exposure early in higher-severity matters.
At the same time, Florida’s appellate courts continue to impose meaningful limits on punitive claims. In Limousines of South Florida, Inc. v. Levit, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order permitting punitive damages arising from a rear-end accident, concluding that the plaintiff’s evidence did not sufficiently establish intentional misconduct or gross negligence or the requisite connection between an alleged licensing violation and the accident. Similarly, the Fourth District recently reversed the allowance of a punitive damages claim arising from an automobile accident involving allegations of cellphone use while driving. These decisions demonstrate that, notwithstanding Perlmutter, allegations of negligence or regulatory violations do not automatically translate into viable punitive exposure.
Settlement Strategy Remains an Important Tool in Managing Exposure. The Third District addressed settlement strategy in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Suarez, reversing a trial court’s determination that nominal $100 proposals for settlement were not made in good faith. After Citizens prevailed on summary judgment, the appellate court directed that Citizens be awarded its statutory attorney’s fees. The decision reinforces that a nominal proposal may still have significant consequences where the offering party has a reasonable basis for its assessment of limited or no exposure.
Coverage Litigation Continues to Highlight the Importance of Early Strategy. Recent appellate authority also underscores the importance of developing and preserving coverage arguments at the trial level. In Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Oakes, the Fourth District concluded that policy-interpretation arguments advanced on appeal had not been adequately preserved below. For insurers and defense counsel, the decision serves as an important reminder that potentially dispositive coverage positions should be identified, developed, and preserved early in the litigation.
Looking Ahead. Taken together, these decisions reflect a Florida litigation environment that continues to evolve following substantial tort and insurance reforms. Although plaintiffs may have greater procedural latitude in pursuing certain claims, Florida’s appellate courts continue to scrutinize punitive damages, settlement mechanisms, and the preservation of coverage defenses. For insurers, these developments reinforce the value of early exposure analysis, strategic settlement evaluation, and experienced trial counsel capable of identifying which cases warrant resolution and which warrant a firm defense through trial.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
