Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter, et al. v. Federal Insurance Company, et al.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a district-court conflict over the evidentiary standard a trial court applies when a claimant seeks leave to plead punitive damages under section 768.72(1). The Court held that the clear and convincing evidence standard of section 768.72(2) does not apply at the pleading stage, quashing the Fourth District's contrary construction and answering the certified question in the negative.
Key facts
- Harold Peerenboom sued Isaac and Laura Perlmutter for defamation, alleging they orchestrated a hate-mail campaign falsely accusing him of murder and child molestation in their Palm Beach community.
- The Perlmutters counterclaimed and moved under section 768.72(1) and Rule 1.190(f) to amend to add punitive damages against Peerenboom, his lawyer William Douberley, and Douberley's employer Federal Insurance Company, alleging an improper DNA-collection and false-testing scheme.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- On a motion to amend to add a punitive damages claim under section 768.72(1), the trial court does not apply the trial-level clear and convincing evidence standard; the test is whether a…
- +2 more holdings with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision is dispositive for any Florida civil practitioner litigating a motion to amend to add punitive damages. It rejects the Fourth District's quasi-summary-judgment 'clear and convincing' gatekeeping test and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.