Florida justices back changes for punitive damages in civil suits

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday approved a change that opponents say could put up a roadblock to punitive damages in lawsuits.

Justices, in a 6-1 opinion, backed a rule change that will enable attorneys to appeal judges’ rulings that allow lawsuits to be amended to include claims for punitive damages.

The appeals would be filed while the lawsuits are pending.

The Supreme Court in 2020 directed a committee of The Florida Bar to draw up the rule, which then needed approval by justices.

The Florida Defense Lawyers Association, which is made up of attorneys who defend clients in civil lawsuits, supported the change, saying in a filing that it “will help protect defendants from invasive discovery into their personal and/ or corporate finances where a claim for punitive damages should have never been allowed.”

But Justice Jorge Labarga and plaintiffs’ attorneys opposed the change, with Labarga writing Thursday that the “unfortunate consequence of this drastic change in appellate procedure will be unnecessary and unwarranted delays in civil actions with claims for punitive damages.”

“Given this additional delay, it is also not unreasonable to anticipate that some claimants in civil cases may reluctantly forgo meritorious claims for punitive damages in order to avoid delay in bringing their cases to a final resolution,” Labarga wrote. “Of particular concern are tort cases involving personal injury, where claims for much needed medical and economic relief will stall until the question of punitive damages is resolved. Access to our judicial system with claims authorized by law should not be impeded by unnecessary delay and resulting additional expense.”

Punitive damages can be awarded in civil lawsuits on top of damages for such things as medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. Punitive damages are not awarded in most cases, but they can involve large amounts of money.

Thursday’s majority opinion gave little explanation about why the court supported the rule change, which will take effect April 1. Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson, Carlos Muniz, John Couriel and Jamie Grosshans were in the majority.

The rule deals with what are known as “interlocutory” appeals of judges’ decisions to either allow or reject adding claims for punitive damages to lawsuits.

A report last year from the Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee said the Supreme Court had noted in its request for the rule change that “there is currently no avenue for the immediate review of the trial court’s determination of whether there has been a showing by record evidence that would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages” — though a more-restricted process, known as filing a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” has existed.