Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., Case No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026)

Harold Peerenboom initiated this action by suing Isaac and Laura Perlmutter for defamation, alleging that they were responsible for a hate-mail campaign against him. The Perlmutters counterclaimed and later obtained the trial court’s permission to amend their counterclaims to seek punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes.

Sitting en banc, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the record evidence was insufficient to permit punitive-damages claims. The Fourth District construed section 768.72 to require the trial court to determine whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages were warranted. The court certified conflict with other district courts of appeal and certified a question of great public importance.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute, joined by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the American Tort Reform Association, filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents. The amici argued that courts should consider the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and evaluate all record evidence when deciding whether to allow a claimant to amend a pleading to assert punitive damages.

The Florida Supreme Court 2026_0611 Perlmutter Opinion and clarified that, under section 768.72(1), the trial court should consider only the claimant’s identified or proffered 2026_0611 Perlmutter Opinion evidence and should not consider any counter-evidence from the opposing party. The Court further held that the sufficiency inquiry is whether a reasonable person could conclude, based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence,” and that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard does not apply at the pleading stage. The Court quashed the Fourth District’s decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the test announced by the Court.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute was represented by William W. Large and by Michael M. Brownlee and Grace Zogaib of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A.