Florida's highest court says plaintiffs need not clear the demanding "clear and convincing" evidence bar just to plead punitive damages.
In a June 11, 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of Florida held that trial judges must not apply the tough "clear and convincing evidence" standard when they decide whether a plaintiff can add a punitive damages claim. That standard still governs at trial. At the pleading stage, the court said, a lighter test applies.
The case turns on section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, which bars a punitive damages claim unless there is "a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." The Fourth District Court of Appeal had read that to require judges to ask whether a reasonable jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that punitive damages were warranted. The Supreme Court rejected that reading.
The real test, the court explained, is whether "a reasonable person could conclude, based on the claimant's evidence, that the defendant committed 'intentional misconduct' or 'gross negligence,'" as those terms are defined in section 768.72(2). The judge does not weigh evidence or decide credibility. And in a second point for claimants, the court held the judge looks only at the claimant's evidence at this stage, not at any rebuttal the defendant offers.
Here is why claims teams should care. The statute holds back discovery into a defendant's financial worth until a punitive claim is allowed, stating that "no discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted." That makes the pleading decision the chokepoint. By rejecting the stricter test, the court has made that gate easier to clear, which means defendants in Florida may face punitive demands - and the financial-worth discovery that follows - earlier than under the Fourth District's approach.
The dispute that produced the ruling began as a feud between Palm Beach neighbors. Harold Peerenboom sued Isaac and Laura Perlmutter for defamation, and the couple countersued. The Perlmutters then moved to add punitive damages against Peerenboom, a lawyer employed by Federal Insurance Company who had represented Peerenboom in a separate lawsuit, and the insurer itself. According to the opinion, the Perlmutters alleged that Peerenboom and the lawyer used a "pretextual deposition" to collect the couple's DNA from items they touched and left behind. The lawyer argued he "was not involved" in the later testing or release of results, and Federal Insurance argued its management "had no contemporaneous knowledge" of his role.
The trial court let the punitive claims through. The Fourth District, sitting en banc, reversed. The Supreme Court has now quashed that reversal and sent the case back, expressing "no view on the merits." That includes the still-open question of whether Federal Insurance can be liable for its lawyer's conduct under section 768.72(2)-(3), which sets the conditions for punitive damages against an employer for the acts of an employee or agent.
Chief Justice Muñiz wrote the opinion, with Justices Labarga, Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, Sasso, and Tanenbaum concurring.
The underlying allegations remain unproven. The Supreme Court ruled only on the legal standard, not on the facts, and the decision is not final until the time to seek rehearing expires.
