← Case library
4th DCAOctober 7, 2026Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded⭐ Notable

Federal Insurance Co. v. Perlmutter

Case No. 4D2022-1560

On remand from the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co. clarifying the section 768.72 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 Douberley (insufficient pleading and evidentiary proffer of intentional misconduct) and as to Federal (vicarious punitive liability failed where no managing agent was identified and the derivative claim collapsed with the employee's).

Key facts

  • Federal Insurance Co. and individual defendants Peerenboom and Douberley were sued by the Perlmutters, who sought to amend their counterclaims to add punitive damages claims for conversion, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy.
  • The trial court granted the Perlmutters' motion to amend counterclaims to assert punitive damages against all defendants; the Fourth District then reviewed the orders on remand from the Florida Supreme Court's Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co. decision clarifying the section 768.72 standard.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is the Fourth District's first application of the Florida Supreme Court's Perlmutter II framework for section 768.72 punitive damages amendments, and it supplies concrete guidance litigators need on both halves of… — 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.