Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 768.72 (2025)
Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes: current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
768.72 Pleading in civil actions; claim for punitive damages.—
(1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted 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 claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so as to allow the claimant discovery of evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.
(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Intentional misconduct” means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.
(b) “Gross negligence” means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.
(3) In the case of an employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity, punitive damages may be imposed for the conduct of an employee or agent only if the conduct of the employee or agent meets the criteria specified in subsection (2) and:
(a) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity actively and knowingly participated in such conduct;
(b) The officers, directors, or managers of the employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to such conduct; or
(c) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the loss, damages, or injury suffered by the claimant.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be applied to all causes of action arising after the effective date of this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 422
cases (141 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State of Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v. Plantation Square Assocs., Ltd., 761 F. Supp. 1569 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
State of Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v. Plantation Square Assocs., Ltd., 761 F. Supp. 1569 (S.D. Fla. 1991). “Punitive Damages The defendants have moved to dismiss SWIB’s claim for punitive damages for failure to comply with Florida Statutes § 768.72. 2 That statute, which came into law as § 51 of the Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, Chapter 86-160, provides: In any civil action,…”
Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “3d DCA 1997) ("Pursuant to Florida Statute section 768.72 (1995), a punitive damage claim can be supported by a proffer of evidence.”
Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995). “We conclude that appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint…”
Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Certiorari Analysis “Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, [Florida Statutes (2016),] but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The essential requirements of the law for seeking leave to file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l., Inc., 842 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “While this contention may be accurate, Fla. Stat. § 768.72 (1992) sets out certain conditions which must be met before a claimant may plead a claim for punitive damages.”
Teel v. United Tech. Pratt & Whitney, 953 F. Supp. 1534 (S.D. Fla. 1997). “§ 768.72, Fla.Stat. (1995). Ms. Teel appears willing to concede that § 768.”
The Event Depot Corp. v. Robert Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “This supports a punitive damages claim against the corporation under section 768.”
Lucille Ruth Soffer, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016). “190(f) and section 768.72, Florida Statutes. Soffer’s request for the amendment was not limited to any one count.”
Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011). “2d at 1099 , superseded by statute on other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (1989). We have explained, “[I]t is extremely rare that erroneous interlocutory rulings can be corrected by resort to common law certiorari.”
Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai s/a, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “While mindful of the cases in this District that have found § 768.72 applicable to diversity proceedings, the Court finds their reasoning unpersuasive.”
Kis Grp., LLC, Alerion Mgmt. Grp., LLC & Ricardo Deavila v. Yves Moquin, 263 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “Because the court failed to follow the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes, we grant the petition.”
768.72(1): 100 cases
Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “3d DCA 1997) ("Pursuant to Florida Statute section 768.72 (1995), a punitive damage claim can be supported by a proffer of evidence.”
Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Certiorari Analysis “Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, [Florida Statutes (2016),] but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The essential requirements of the law for seeking leave to file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
Fla. Hosp. Med. Servs., LLC v. Newsholme, 255 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai s/a, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “While mindful of the cases in this District that have found § 768.72 applicable to diversity proceedings, the Court finds their reasoning unpersuasive.”
768.72(2): 62 cases
Lucille Ruth Soffer, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016). “190(f) and section 768.72, Florida Statutes. Soffer’s request for the amendment was not limited to any one count.”
Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Certiorari Analysis “Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, [Florida Statutes (2016),] but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The essential requirements of the law for seeking leave to file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
Kennedy v. Carnival Corp., 385 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2019).
768.72(2)(a): 28 cases
Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Certiorari Analysis “Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, [Florida Statutes (2016),] but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
Bailey v. St. Louis, 196 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Southstar Equity, LLC v. Lai Chau, 998 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Goodin v. Bank of Am. N.A., 114 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
768.72(2)(b): 39 cases
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Andy R. Allen Sr., as Pers. Rep. etc., 228 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Hogan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The essential requirements of the law for seeking leave to file a pleading asserting a claim for punitive damages in a civil action are enumerated in section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, 38 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Bailey v. St. Louis, 196 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
768.72(3): 38 cases
Fetlar, LLC v. Suarez, 230 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
The Event Depot Corp. v. Robert Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “This supports a punitive damages claim against the corporation under section 768.”
Coronado Condo. Ass'n v. Corte, 103 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Melford v. Kahane & Assocs., 371 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (S.D. Fla. 2019).
768.72(3)(a): 9 cases
Wayne Frier Home Ctr. of Pensacola, Inc. v. Cadlerock Jt. Venture, L.P., 16 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Monica Olivares, Individually, & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Alberto Olivares & Randolph Sapp (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
William Marvin Douberley v. Harold Peerenboom (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
McLane Foodservice, Inc. v. Elizabeth Wool (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Jerry M. Lindzon (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
768.72(3)(b): 7 cases
Tallahassee Mem'l HealthCare, Inc. v. Cherelle Dukes, 272 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
Coronado Condo. Ass'n v. Corte, 103 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
Cleveland Clinic Florida Health Sys. Nonprofit Corp. & Cleveland Clinic Florida v. Andrea S. Oriolo, as Pers. Rep. for the Est. of Saverio Sasso (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
McLane Foodservice, Inc. v. Elizabeth Wool (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Napleton's North Palm Auto Park, Inc. v. Abigail Agosto (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
768.72(3)(c): 3 cases
The Event Depot Corp. v. Robert Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “This supports a punitive damages claim against the corporation under section 768.”
Napleton's North Palm Auto Park, Inc. v. Abigail Agosto (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
D.B. (M.D. Fla. 2025).
768.72(4): 2 cases
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Andy R. Allen Sr., as Pers. Rep. etc., 228 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Evers (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
768.72(l): 1 case
Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai s/a, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “While mindful of the cases in this District that have found § 768.72 applicable to diversity proceedings, the Court finds their reasoning unpersuasive.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.