Federal Insurance Co. v. Perlmutter
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Perlmutter II clarifying the section 768.72 punitive-damages amendment standard, the Fourth District re-examined orders allowing the Perlmutters to amend counterclaims to seek punitive damages. It affirmed as to Peerenboom but reversed as to employee Douberley (insufficient pleading allegations and insufficient proffer of specific-intent intentional misconduct) and as to Federal Insurance (vicarious theory failed with Douberley and, independently, because no proffer showed a 'managing agent' knowingly participated in, condoned, ratified, or consented to the conduct).
Key facts
- Federal Insurance Co. and employee Douberley were sued by the Perlmutters, who sought to amend their counterclaims to add punitive damages claims based on alleged conspiracy, conversion, and abuse of process.
- The trial court had previously allowed the amendments, but the case was remanded by the Florida Supreme Court in Perlmutter II to reconsider the punitive damages standard under section 768.72.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the Fourth District's application of the Florida Supreme Court's new Perlmutter II framework for section 768.72 punitive-damages amendments, and it is likely to be the leading practical roadmap for both movants… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.