Cases from cite.case.law:

EVENT DEPOT CORP. v. FRANK a, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Within Chapter 99-225, the legislature also made substantive revisions to section 768.73, Florida Statutes . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. E. SHEFFIELD,, 266 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . we hold that the applicable version of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73 . . . Reynolds argued that the punitive damages issues should be governed by the current version of section 768.73 . . . Express statutory language controls Section 768.73(5), Florida Statutes (1999), states: "The provisions . . . Sheffield's death in 2007, making the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applicable to . . . However, section 768.73(2)(b) permits the trial court to submit punitive damages to the jury "if the . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. R. J. v. MARTIN,, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . after October 1, 1999, the trial court erred by declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73 . . . of [the] act," which was October 1, 1999. § 768.73(5), Fla. . . . Before the 1999 amendment, section 768.73 had no such bar on successive awards of punitive damages. . . . -1999 version of section 768.73 applies to this case. . . . Therefore, applying the current version of section 768.73 to this case, we find that section 768.73(2 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. KONZELMAN, As, 248 So. 3d 134 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . with the First and Second District Courts of Appeal in holding that the pre-1999 version of section 768.73 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY USA v. R. ALLEN Sr. FOR ESTATE OF L. ALLEN,, 228 So. 3d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Chapter 99-225, section 23, amended section 768.73, Florida Statutes, to impose a stricter cap on punitive . . . McFarland & Sons, Inc., 815 So.2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. Stat. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. EVERS,, 232 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The trial court properly applied section 768.73(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995), to the punitive . . . Reynolds contends that the post-1999 version of section 768.73 is applicable because Evers’ wrongful . . . Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 n.9 (Fla. 2003); and then citing §§ 768.72(4) & 768.73(5), Fla. . . . Having determined that, the trial court properly applied the 1995 version of section 768.73(l)(a) and . . . Reynolds also made the argument that under both the pre-1999 or post-1999 versions of section 768.73, . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. DANIELSON, 224 So. 3d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 768.73(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (defining an excessive award); Wackenhut Corp. v. . . . See § 768.73(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. . . .

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO. LTD. GIPS KG LLC, v. ZIEGLER,, 219 So. 3d 882 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . They argue, the.trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by construing section ,768.73 . . . They argued section 768.73(2) prohibits a subsequent punitive damage award if punitive damages were previously . . . Specifically, section 768.73(2) provides: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), punitive damages may . . . against successive punitive damage awards. - We agree with the drywall defendants’ argument that section 768.73 . . .

IN RE A. BAVELIS, A. v., 571 B.R. 278 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2017)

. . . . § 768.73(1)(a)-(b), it imposes no cap “[w]here the fact finder determines that at the time of injury . . . Stat. § 768.73(1)(c). . . .

FLYING FISH BIKES, INC. v. GIANT BICYCLE, INC., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Florida law, the jury instructions and verdict form on punitive damages mirror the language of Section 768.73 . . . (Doc. 182 at 2-3) By answering affirmatively each question, the jury in effect applied Section 768.73 . . . The “3-to-l-ratio” presumption in Giant’s motion, in Brown, and in Alexander derives from Section 768.73 . . . (l)(a) explicitly excludes Sections 768.73(l)(b) and (l)(c) from the “3-to-l-ratio” presumption. . . . Thus, under Section 768.73(l)(c), the jury removed the limit on punitive damages and awarded an amount . . .

GOODIN J. v. BANK OF AMERICA N. A., 114 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.73(1). . . . Stat. § 768.73(1)(a) applies to FCCPA cases. McDaniel v. . . .

BROWN v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.73. . . .

L. E. MYERS COMPANY, a v. YOUNG,, 165 So. 3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Nyberg, and it reduced the punitive damages award to $3.6 million pursuant to section 768.73(l)(a), Florida . . . Section 768.73(l)(a) limits an award of punitive damages to the greater of three times the amount of . . .

BARTLEY, T. D. v. KIM S ENTERPRISE OF ORLANDO, INC. a d. b. a. a, 568 F. App'x 827 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a) (providing that “an award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of ... . . .

McDANIEL, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,, 568 F. App'x 729 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a). . . .

SWANSON, v. J. ROBLES, A., 128 So. 3d 915 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. BUONOMO,, 138 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In its order, the trial court cited section 768.73(l)(a)l. . . . While the court did not include a year, section 768.73 did not have a subsection “(l)(a)l.” until after . . . See § 768.73(l)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352, 1358 (Fla.1994) (holding substantive amendment to section 768.73 could not be . . . Coisman, 799 So.2d 1110, 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that applicable version of section 768.73 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. BUONOMO,, 128 So. 3d 102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In its order, the trial court cited section 768.73(l)(a)l. . . . While the court did not include a year, section 768.73 did not have a subsection “(l)(a)l.” until after . . . See § 768.73(l)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352, 1358 (Fla.1994) (holding substantive amendment to section 768.73 could not be . . . Coisman, 799 So.2d 1110, 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that applicable version of section 768.73 . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, v. ALEXANDER,, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Importantly, because the punitive damages award falls well within the parameters set forth in section 768.73 . . . compensatory damages, the award is presumed to be constitutionally permissible under Florida law. § 768.73 . . . process rights) (citing Engle, 945 So.2d at 1264-65); Martin, 53 So.3d at 1070 (holding that section 768.73 . . . damages award to $10 million, a 2.5 to 1 ratio, the award does not exceed the parameters of section 768.73 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. KAYTON, 104 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. NAUGLE,, 126 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . . § 768.73(l)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . Nevertheless, section 768.73 does not prohibit an appellate court from determining the reasonableness . . . of a punitive damages award that is less than three times the amount of compensatory damages. § 768.73 . . .

N. YOUNG, v. BECKER POLIAKOFF, P. A., 88 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . that the $4.5 million punitive damages award overcame the presumption of exces-siveness under section 768.73 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. ALEXANDER, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . and “build a record for a due process argument based on the cumulative effect of prior awards”); § 768.73 . . .

RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. J. PHILLIPS, J. R. L. J. K., 110 So. 3d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The Miele court considered whether section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991), which addressed limitations . . . Section 768.73 provided, in pertinent part, that it applied to “any civil action” that fell within certain . . . enactment of section 768.737, subsequent to the Miele decision, made clear its intent that section 768.73 . . . Where punitive damages are available as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding, ss. 768.72, 768.725 and 768.73 . . . Section 768.73(2) was part of the 1986 Tort Reform and Insurance Act and reflected a philosophy that . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. C. MARTIN, R., 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (2005) provides, in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based . . . Turning first to whether remittitur was appropriately denied under section 768.73, the facts and circumstances . . . to Kaylo, the supreme court concluded the trial court “acted properly and responsibly under section 768.73 . . . We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s approval, under section 768.73(l)(b), of the $25 . . . The punitive damage award overcomes the presumption of excessiveness in section 768.73, Florida Statutes . . .

JAMES CRYSTAL LICENSES, LLC, LLC, a k a v. INFINITY RADIO INC. a f k a CBS, 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . As recognized in Lawnwood, section 768.73(l)(c), Florida Statute provides no cap on punitive damages . . .

LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER INC. v. H. SADOW, M. D., 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). See also § 768.73(4), Fla. . . . In oral argument Lawnwood argued that the excess above $500,000 should be remitted. . § 768.73(l)(c), . . . evidence of intentional falsity, harmful intent, and actual harm in this case satisfies Gertz. . § 768.73 . . .

WEINGRAD, M. D. v. MILES, 29 So. 3d 406 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Specifically, we reject reliance on: Mancusi, 632 So.2d at 1357 (where the statute at issue, section 768.73 . . .

MYERS, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(d). . . . Section 768.73(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides that “an award of punitive damages may not exceed . . . Id. § 768.73(l)(c). . . . Stat. § 768.73(l)(a), we need not consider whether the defendants properly moved for application of the . . .

EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008)

. . . . §§ 768.73(1)(b), (c) (2007) (normal limit replaced by greater of 4:1 or $2 million where defendant’ . . .

INC. v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 768.73. . . .

ANTUNEZ, v. WHITFIELD,, 980 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . In Mancusi, the supreme court found that section 768.73(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), which limits . . .

ZAMORA, v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 969 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The provisions of ss. 768.72 and 768.73 do not apply to this section-In any action or proceeding under . . .

MARTIN DAYTONA CORPORATION, v. STRICKLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,, 941 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The court in Miele considered the issue whether section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991), which addressed . . . part, that it applied to “any civil action” that fell within certain categories of tort actions. § 768.73 . . . enacted section 768.737 Florida Statutes (1999), which provides that sections 768.72, 768.725, and 768.73 . . . regarding the issue whether arbitration proceedings are “civil actions” within the meaning of section 768.73 . . .

SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, v. DUPONT,, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . from the limitations and restrictions imposed on other civil awards pursuant to sections 768.72 and 768.73 . . . The provisions of ss. 768.72 and 768.73 do not apply to this section. . . .

ESTATE OF DESPAIN, v. AVANTE GROUP, INC., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act, provides that the provisions of section 768.72(2)-(4), 768.725, and 768.73 . . .

WHITE, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(b) (1991) (punitive damages exceeding three times actual damages must be proved by clear . . .

CORAL CADILLAC, INC. a v. R. STEPHENS,, 867 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1995), states in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based on . . . The issue central to this argument is whether section 768.73 applies to consumer transactions. . . . Because section 768.73 fails to define either “commercial transaction” or “consumer transaction” and . . . We must conclude that had the legislature meant for “commercial transaction” under section 768.73 to . . . Stat. (2002). ' Because section 768.73 fails to address the issue as to whether the purchase and sale . . .

M. MATALON, v. G. LEE,, 847 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See §§ 768.72, 768.725, 768.73, 768.736, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

BASEL Co- v. McFARLAND SONS, INC. a, 815 So. 2d 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . In Mancusi the court considered whether an amendment to section 768.73(l)(a), Florida Statutes limiting . . .

ST. JOHN, v. COISMAN,, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . decision in Cooper applies to punitive damage awards that are limited (capped) pursuant to section 768.73 . . . ; and explain why section 768.73 does not apply to the instant case. . . . See §'768.73(l)(c), Fla. . . . As the court stated in Ballard: We recognize that the Legislature recently amended section 768.73. . . . I believe that section 768.73 is applicable to § 1983 actions brought in Florida courts. . . . The trial court held that the caps on punitive damages set forth in section 768.73, Florida Statutes . . . See § 768.73(l)(c). . . . It appears that section 768.73 may not apply to a federal cause of action for intentional deprivation . . . The applicable Florida statute is the 1993 version of section 768.73, because that is the statute in . . .

CHEMPLEX FLORIDA v. NORELLI a, 790 So. 2d 547 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Sections 768.72 and 768.73, Florida Statutes, relied upon by the Norel-lis, do not provide this statutory . . .

McGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE BOOTHE, L. L. P. P. A. L. P. A. L. v. F. HOLLFELDER, J. S. FJC C H, 771 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . We find respondent’s rebanee on sections 768.72 and 768.73 similarly misplaced. . . .

SUN INTERNATIONAL BAHAMAS, LTD. v. WAGNER,, 758 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . damages award must be remitted to $42,000.00 (three times the compensatory damages) pursuant to section 768.73 . . . Section 768.73(l)(b), in turn, provided: If any award for punitive damages exceeds the limitation specified . . . See § 768.73(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). We disagree. . . .

L. LEWSADDER, v. ESTATE OF LEWSADDER,, 757 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . 470, 472-73 (Fla.1995)(holding that arbitration is not a civil action as that term is used in section 768.73 . . .

LIPSIG, v. A. RAMLAWI,, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . motions to reduce the punitive damage awards to three times the compensatory damages, pursuant to section 768.73 . . . reduced the punitive damages award to three times the amount of compensatory damages pursuant to section 768.73 . . . Section 768.73 provides in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based on negligence, strict liability . . . of fact. (2) The jury may neither be instructed nor informed as to the provisions of this section. § 768.73 . . . reducing the punitive damage awards to three times the amount of the compensatory damages pursuant to § 768.73 . . .

OWENS- CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, v. BALLARD,, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999)

. . . public importance: IS THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION AS TO EXCESSIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FOUND IN SECTION 768.73 . . . See § 768.73(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . Section 768.73 states in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action ... involving willful, wanton, or . . . See id. § 768.73(l)(a)-(b) (emphasis added). . . . We recognize that the Legislature recently amended section 768.73. . . . Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1995), entitled “Punitive damages; limitation” is implicated in this . . .

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. a v. PALANK, a a, 743 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . CSX also contends that the trial court should have granted a remittitur pursuant to section 768.73, Florida . . . Section 768.73 provides that a punitive damage award may not exceed three times the amount awarded for . . .

JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. a v. FPL GROUP, INC. a FPL a a, 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998)

. . . Stat. ch. 768.73(l)(a) (1997). .Florida Statutes chapter 772.104 provides that a defendant "shall be . . .

KAY, v. ROMERO,, 721 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See § 768.73(l)(a), (b), Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

OWENS- CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, v. BALLARD,, 739 So. 2d 603 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 768.73(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Jenkins, 409 So.2d at 1042. . . . public importance: IS THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION AS TO EXCESSIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FOUND IN SECTION 768.73 . . .

JANSEN, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, B. ELLERTH, v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . . § 768.73(1)(a) & (b) (1993) (same); Ga. . . .

R. SPARKS, v. JAY S A. C. REFRIGERATION, INC. a, 971 F. Supp. 1433 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Moreover, the section specifically states that the pleading requirements of Florida Statute §§ 768.72 and 768.73 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, v. EDWARDS a, 695 So. 2d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The trial court’s final judgment provided: Pursuant to Florida Statute 768.73, in an award of punitive . . . Based upon Florida Statute 768.73, punitive damages shall be payable as follows: $3,412.50 to Plaintiff . . . After the jury verdict, the Department intervened in the trial court proceedings pursuant to section 768.73 . . . Therefore, we hold that the repeal of section 768.73(2) did not constitute a valid reason for relief . . . cases and causes of action in which a judgment has not been entered.” § 768.73(2)n.l, Fla. . . .

NEILL v. GULF STREAM COACH, INC., 966 F. Supp. 1149 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, the provisions regarding punitive damages (codified as §§ 768.72 and 768.73 . . . punitive damages, became concrete in Fla.Stat. § 768.72 — the statute in question here — and Fla.Stat. § 768.73 . . . Fla.Stat. § 768.73(l)(a). . . . Fla.Stat. § 768.73(l)(c)(2). . . . When read contemporaneously with § 768.73, and in light of the Florida Tort Reform and Insurance Act . . .

MIAMI COLUMBUS, INC. v. A. RAMLAWI,, 687 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . denied — with the exception of reducing the punitive damage awards to three times the compensatory, § 768.73 . . .

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996)

. . . . §§ 768.73(l)(a) and (b) (Supp. 1992) (in general, caps punitive damages at three times compensatory . . . Stat. §§ 768.73(2)(a)-(b) (Supp. 1992) (allocates 35% of punitive damages to General Revenue Fund or . . . . §768.73(1) (Supp. 1993) (punitive damages in certain actions limited to treble compensatory damages . . .

W. SONTAG v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE,, 669 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . The trial court’s ruling is contrary to section 768.73(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides that . . . Because section 768.73 does not provide for the Department to share in the settlement, I would reverse . . . Although the legislature amended section 768.73 to state that the original parties to an action must . . . provide for a share to the State in any settlement agreement, § 768.73(4), Fla.Stat. . . . Pursuant to section 768.73(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court specifically ordered that . . . Section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes (1991) provides as follows: (2) In any civil action, an award of . . .

MIELE v. PRUDENTIAL BACHE SECURITIES A., 62 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 768.73 (1991). . . . We certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: Does Florida Statute § 768.73 apply . . . Section 768.73(2) has since been amended to provide for 35% of a punitive damage award to be paid to . . . also contended (1) that even if § 768.73(2) applied to arbitration awards, it did not apply to their . . . arbitration award, and (2) that application of § 768.73(2) to arbitration awards is unconstitutional . . .

C. VINING, Jr. v. MARTYN,, 660 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . package for purposes of calculating the presumptive range of allowable punitive damages under section 768.73 . . .

W. CHADIMA, v. NATIONAL FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 894 F. Supp. 1300 (S.D. Iowa 1995)

. . . Stat. s 13—21—102[4] [1987]), Florida (Fla.Stat. s 768.73[2][b] [1993 Supp.]), Georgia (Ga. . . .

KINTZELE, v. J. B. SONS, INC., 658 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Deciding that punitive damages awarded in arbitration are not subject to section 768.73, Florida Statutes . . . court system,” id. at 50, we cannot assume that the same legislative objectives underlying section 768.73 . . . If section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1993) does not apply to arbitration awards of punitive damages, . . .

CHRISTENSON ASSOCIATES, P. A. v. PALUMBO- TUCKER,, 656 So. 2d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . include prejudgment interest in calculating the presumptive range of punitive damages under section 768.73 . . . Section 768.73(l)(a) provides that an award of punitive damages presumptively “may not exceed three times . . . Certainly, there is nothing in section 768.73 authorizing judges to separate the various elements composing . . . instructions to omit prejudgment interest in calculating the limits of the punitive damage award under section 768.73 . . .

MIELE, v. PRUDENTIAL- BACHE SECURITIES, INC., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1995)

. . . Prudential Bache Securities, 986 F.2d 459 (11th Cir.1993): Does Florida Statute § 768.73 apply to arbitration . . . the State of Florida General Revenue Fund for 60% of the punitive damage award pursuant to section 768.73 . . . The district court also held that section 768.73 applies to arbitration awards. . . . Section 768.73 addresses the limitation of punitive damages. . . . . § 768.73(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . . damage award to the general revenue fund of the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of section 768.73 . . . of the term “civil action,” I find that the definition of that term -within the meaning of section 768.73 . . . claimants to pursue punitive damage actions in arbitration proceedings to avoid complying with section 768.73 . . . that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73 . . .

C. PULLA, v. AMOCO OIL CO., 882 F. Supp. 836 (S.D. Iowa 1994)

. . . punitive damage legislation are: Colorado (Colo.Rev.Stat. s 13 — 21 — 102[4] [1987]), Florida (Fla.Stat. s 768.73 . . .

FINLEY, v. EMPIREGAS INC. OF POTOSI, a a, 28 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 768.73(2)(b) (emphasis added). . . .

W. R. GRACE CO. CONN. v. WATERS,, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 768.73, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

KRAFT GENERAL FOODS, INC. a v. ROSENBLUM,, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . discrimination cases — the legislature has also expressly stated that “The provisions of ss. 768.72 and 768.73 . . .

W. CHADIMA, v. NATIONAL FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 848 F. Supp. 1418 (S.D. Iowa 1994)

. . . . § 768.73[2][b] [1993 Supp.]), Georgia (Ga.Code Ann. § 51-12-5.l[e][2] [1993 Supp.]), Missouri (Mo.Rev.Stat . . .

STATE v. FERGUSON TRANSPORTATION, INC. f k a a a B. T., 633 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . This appeal raises the applicability and effective date of Florida Statutes section 768.73(2)(b) (1993 . . .

C. SMITH C. v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED,, 846 F. Supp. 978 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a)(b). . . .

ALAMO RENT- A- CAR, INC. v. MANCUSI,, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1994)

. . . Under section 768.73(l)(a), punitive damages must be limited to no more than three times the amount of . . . damages to no more than three times the amount of the compensatory damage award pursuant to section 768.73 . . . Section 768.73(l)(a) was enacted by the legislature in 1986 and specifically “applies only to causes . . . Following this rationale, we find section 768.73(l)(a) to be a substantive rather than procedural statute . . . to section 768.73(l)(a) does not apply to the instant cause of action. . . .

WILLIAM DUNN, HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP. v. HOVIC AMERADA HESS CORP. KEENE CORPORATION v. THE LITWIN CORPORATION LITWIN PANAMERICAN CORP. BORINQUEN INSULATION CO., 28 V.I. 467 (3d Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 768.73; Ga. Code Ann. 51-12-5.1(e)(2); Ill. Ann. . . .

DUNN v. HOVIC v. LITWIN CORPORATION Co., 1 F.3d 1371 (3d Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 768.73; Ga.Code Ann. § 51-12 — 5.1(e)(2); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 110, para. 2-1207; Iowa Code Ann. § 668A.l . . .

MIELE v. PRUDENTIAL BACHE SECURITIES A., 986 F.2d 459 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 768.73(2) (West Supp.1992) which provides for the splitting of punitive damages between the State . . . Second, the Mieles contended that § 768.73(2) did not apply to arbitration awards, and that if it did . . . II.Reason for Certification At issue in this case is whether § 768.73 applies to arbitration awards. . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 768.73 (West Supp.1992). . . . On appeal, the Mieles raised several issues in addition to whether § 768.73 applies to their Award. . . .

STATE v. EQUIPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC., 611 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . pay attorney’s fees for its sixty percent interest in a punitive damage award, contravenes section 768.73 . . . Section 768.73(4) provides in pertinent part: "Claimant’s attorney’s fees, if payable from the judgment . . .

In A. GREENE, SEAY, v. A. GREENE,, 150 B.R. 282 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . $80,000 in punitive damages (representing plaintiff’s 40 percent share according to Florida Statute 768.73 . . . , $80,000 of this amount payable to Seay and $120,000 payable to the State of Florida pursuant to § 768.73 . . .

STATE A- v. MANCUSI,, 609 So. 2d 177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . We also determined that section 768.73(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) did not apply to limit punitive . . . The instant appeal concerns the trial court’s post judgment order which determined that section 768.73 . . . The Florida Supreme Court has recently held section 768.73(2)(b) to be constitutional. Gordon v. . . . Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and note that on remand § 768.73(2)(b) would apply. . . .

GORDON, v. STATE, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1992)

. . . We review a question certified to be of great public importance: whether subsection 768.73(2)(b), Florida . . . intervene to assert its interest in sixty percent of the punitive damages award pursuant to subsection 768.73 . . . Gordon’s attorneys contend that subsection 768.73(4), Florida Statutes (Supplement 1986), also is unconstitutional . . . We moreover find no merit to counsel’s claim that subsection 768.73(4), providing that attorney’s fees . . . Gordon’s cause of action accrued after the effective date of section 768.73 and the contingent fee contract . . . I agree that subsection 768.73(4) is constitutional. . . . I cannot agree that subsections 768.73(2) and (5) are constitutional. . . . I also view section 768.73(5), Florida Statutes (Supplement 1986), as constitutionally infirm, because . . .

MYRTLE GROVE, INC. v. S. TAYLOR,, 599 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Movant sought to assert its right to 60 percent of the punitive damage award pursuant to section 768.73 . . .

ALAMO RENT- A- CAR, INC. v. MANCUSI,, 599 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . punitive damages should not be limited to three times the compensatory damage award pursuant to section 768.73 . . . This section provides in pertinent part: 768.73 Punitive damages; limitation. . . . There is no indication from the plain meaning of section 768.73 that the legislature intended the intentional . . . We do not address the distinct issue regarding the constitutionality of section 768.73, currently pending . . .

B. SCHEIDT C. v. KLEIN,, 956 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1992)

. . . action for common law fraud does not appear to fall within the explicitly delimited scope of section 768.73 . . . Prior to remittitur, the damage award did not implicate section 768.73(1), since the jury awarded Plaintiffs . . .

In GERI ZAHN, INC. d b a L. P. GOVAERT, v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,, 135 B.R. 912 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . determine the amount of punitive damages the Court may award, Plaintiff contends Florida Statute § 768.73 . . . Florida Statute § 768.73 states that “in any civil action based on ... misconduct in commercial transactions . . . However, § 768.73 only applies to causes of action arising after July 1, 1986. . . .

BAUER LAMP CO. INC. v. SHAFFER, a, 941 F.2d 1165 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . They cite Fla.Stat.Ann. section 768.73 (West 1982) as authority for this proposition. . . . In pertinent part section 768.73 provides: (l)(a) In any civil action based on negligence, strict liability . . .

GORDON, v. STATE K-, 585 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . and the State of Florida moved to intervene as a party plaintiff for the purpose of applying section 768.73 . . . Pursuant to section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1987) a judgment is hereby entered in favor of the General . . . At least two such bases of 768.73(2)(b) are readily apparent; (a) it is clear that the present statute . . . Section 768.73(4) provides: . . . . In deciding that § 768.73(2)(b) is valid, we have not overlooked McBride v. . . .

In M. GETTINGS, A. WANNAMAKER, v. M. GETTINGS,, 130 B.R. 353 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . . § 768.73(l)(a) and (b). . . .

PALMER, v. L. DAVIES,, 591 So. 2d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . punitive damages between appellee and the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund as provided in section 768.73 . . .

PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. HASLIP, 499 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1991)

. . . . §768.73(l)(a) (1989) (in specified classes of cases, punitive damages are limited to three times the . . .

GERMANIO v. GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER COMPANY,, 732 F. Supp. 1297 (D.N.J. 1990)

. . . . @ 768.73. . . .

BROWNING- FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF VERMONT, INC. v. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1989)

. . . . § 768.73(2)(b) (1987) (60% of any award of punitive damages is payable to the State). . . .

C. PEABODY, v. ROTAN MOSLE, INC. A SUBSIDIARY OF PAINE WEBBER,, 677 F. Supp. 1135 (M.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . award of punitive damages in this case should be paid to the Florida General Revenue Fund pursuant to § 768.73 . . . However, since this cause of action arose before July 1, 1986, § 768.73(2) does not apply here. . . .