768.73
Punitive damages; limitation.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
768.73 Punitive damages; limitation.—
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), an award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of:
1. Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each claimant entitled thereto, consistent with the remaining provisions of this section; or
2. The sum of $500,000.
(b) Where the fact finder determines that the wrongful conduct proven under this section was motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain and determines that the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct, together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct, was actually known by the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant, it may award an amount of punitive damages not to exceed the greater of:
1. Four times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each claimant entitled thereto, consistent with the remaining provisions of this section; or
2. The sum of $2 million.
(c) Where the fact finder determines that at the time of injury the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant and determines that the defendant’s conduct did in fact harm the claimant, there shall be no cap on punitive damages.
(d) This subsection is not intended to prohibit an appropriate court from exercising its jurisdiction under s. 768.74 in determining the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages that is less than three times the amount of compensatory damages.
(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), punitive damages may not be awarded against a defendant in a civil action if that defendant establishes, before trial, that punitive damages have previously been awarded against that defendant in any state or federal court in any action alleging harm from the same act or single course of conduct for which the claimant seeks compensatory damages. For purposes of a civil action, the term “the same act or single course of conduct” includes acts resulting in the same manufacturing defects, acts resulting in the same defects in design, or failure to warn of the same hazards, with respect to similar units of a product.
(b) In subsequent civil actions involving the same act or single course of conduct for which punitive damages have already been awarded, if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of prior punitive damages awarded was insufficient to punish that defendant’s behavior, the court may permit a jury to consider an award of subsequent punitive damages. In permitting a jury to consider awarding subsequent punitive damages, the court shall make specific findings of fact in the record to support its conclusion. In addition, the court may consider whether the defendant’s act or course of conduct has ceased. Any subsequent punitive damage awards must be reduced by the amount of any earlier punitive damage awards rendered in state or federal court.
(3) The claimant attorney’s fees, if payable from the judgment, are, to the extent that the fees are based on the punitive damages, calculated based on the final judgment for punitive damages. This subsection does not limit the payment of attorney’s fees based upon an award of damages other than punitive damages.
(4) The jury may neither be instructed nor informed as to the provisions of this section.
(5) The provisions of this section shall be applied to all causes of action arising after the effective date of this act.
History.—ss. 52, 65, ch. 86-160; s. 1, ch. 87-42; s. 5, ch. 87-50; s. 1, ch. 88-335; s. 71, ch. 91-282; ss. 2, 3, ch. 92-85; s. 16, ch. 97-94; s. 23, ch. 99-225.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 143
cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: St. John v. Coisman
St. John v. Coisman (2001)
“1996) (punitive damages generally limited to greater of double damages, or 0,000, except cap does not apply to suits arising from certain serious criminal acts enumerated in the statute); Conn.”
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996)
“§ 52 -240b (1995) (punitive damages may not exceed double compensatory damages in product liability cases); Fla. Stat. § 768.73 (1) (Supp. 1993) (punitive damages in certain actions limited to treble compensatory damages); Ga.”
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1994)
“The trial court also ruled that section 768.73(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), the statute *1355 limiting punitive damages to no more than three times the amount of a compensatory damage award, was inapplicable in this case.”
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999)
“[3] LEGAL ANALYSIS In 1986, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1997), which created statutory criteria for judicial review of punitive damage awards exceeding three times the amount awarded for compensatory damages.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin (2010)
“Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (2005) provides, in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based on negligence, strict liability, products liability, misconduct in commercial transactions, professional liability, or breach of warranty, and involving willful, wanton, or…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield (2019)
“Based on the statute's specific language and well-established Florida law, we hold that the applicable version of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the instant wrongful death cause of action accrued on…”
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF (2018)
“disease that caused the Engle class member’s death and gave rise to this claim manifested after October 1, 1999, the trial court erred by declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards of punitive damages under the…”
Gordon v. State (1992)
“Gordon's cause of action accrued after the effective date of section 768.73 and the contingent fee contract was entered into after the statute went into effect; hence the statute did not impair any preexisting contractual rights of Gordon's attorney.”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008)
“ated by financial gain and the adverse consequences of the conduct were actually known by the defendant or the person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant, the normal limit is replaced by the greater of four times the compensatory damages, four…”
Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow (2010)
“§ 768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . It is a significant harm we ourselves have previously recognized in a case of strikingly similar circumstances.”
Gordon v. State (1991)
“Pursuant to section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1987) a judgment is hereby entered in favor of the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS (7,200.”
— 768.73(1) — 7 cases
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999)
“[3] LEGAL ANALYSIS In 1986, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1997), which created statutory criteria for judicial review of punitive damage awards exceeding three times the amount awarded for compensatory damages.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin (2010)
“Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (2005) provides, in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based on negligence, strict liability, products liability, misconduct in commercial transactions, professional liability, or breach of warranty, and involving willful, wanton, or…”
— 768.73(1)(a) — 15 cases
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1994)
“The trial court also ruled that section 768.73(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), the statute *1355 limiting punitive damages to no more than three times the amount of a compensatory damage award, was inapplicable in this case.”
St. John v. Coisman (2001)
“1996) (punitive damages generally limited to greater of double damages, or 0,000, except cap does not apply to suits arising from certain serious criminal acts enumerated in the statute); Conn.”
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996)
“§ 52 -240b (1995) (punitive damages may not exceed double compensatory damages in product liability cases); Fla. Stat. § 768.73 (1) (Supp. 1993) (punitive damages in certain actions limited to treble compensatory damages); Ga.”
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
— 768.73(1)(a)(1) — 1 case
— 768.73(1)(b) — 4 cases
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999)
“[3] LEGAL ANALYSIS In 1986, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1997), which created statutory criteria for judicial review of punitive damage awards exceeding three times the amount awarded for compensatory damages.”
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
St. John v. Coisman (2001)
“1996) (punitive damages generally limited to greater of double damages, or 0,000, except cap does not apply to suits arising from certain serious criminal acts enumerated in the statute); Conn.”
— 768.73(1)(c) — 6 cases
St. John v. Coisman (2001)
“1996) (punitive damages generally limited to greater of double damages, or 0,000, except cap does not apply to suits arising from certain serious criminal acts enumerated in the statute); Conn.”
Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow (2010)
“§ 768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . It is a significant harm we ourselves have previously recognized in a case of strikingly similar circumstances.”
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
— 768.73(1)(d) — 1 case
St. John v. Coisman (2001)
“1996) (punitive damages generally limited to greater of double damages, or 0,000, except cap does not apply to suits arising from certain serious criminal acts enumerated in the statute); Conn.”
— 768.73(2) — 49 cases
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
Peabody v. Rotan Mosle, Inc. (1987)
— 768.73(2)(a) — 39 cases
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996)
“§ 52 -240b (1995) (punitive damages may not exceed double compensatory damages in product liability cases); Fla. Stat. § 768.73 (1) (Supp. 1993) (punitive damages in certain actions limited to treble compensatory damages); Ga.”
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF (2018)
“disease that caused the Engle class member’s death and gave rise to this claim manifested after October 1, 1999, the trial court erred by declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards of punitive damages under the…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield (2019)
“Based on the statute's specific language and well-established Florida law, we hold that the applicable version of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the instant wrongful death cause of action accrued on…”
Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2020)
— 768.73(2)(b) — 20 cases
Gordon v. State (1991)
“Pursuant to section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1987) a judgment is hereby entered in favor of the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS (7,200.”
Gordon v. State (1992)
“Gordon's cause of action accrued after the effective date of section 768.73 and the contingent fee contract was entered into after the statute went into effect; hence the statute did not impair any preexisting contractual rights of Gordon's attorney.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield (2019)
“Based on the statute's specific language and well-established Florida law, we hold that the applicable version of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the instant wrongful death cause of action accrued on…”
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF (2018)
“disease that caused the Engle class member’s death and gave rise to this claim manifested after October 1, 1999, the trial court erred by declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards of punitive damages under the…”
— 768.73(3) — 1 case
— 768.73(4) — 5 cases
Gordon v. State (1992)
“Gordon's cause of action accrued after the effective date of section 768.73 and the contingent fee contract was entered into after the statute went into effect; hence the statute did not impair any preexisting contractual rights of Gordon's attorney.”
Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow (2010)
“§ 768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . It is a significant harm we ourselves have previously recognized in a case of strikingly similar circumstances.”
Gordon v. State (1991)
“Pursuant to section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1987) a judgment is hereby entered in favor of the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS (7,200.”
— 768.73(5) — 8 cases
Gordon v. State (1992)
“Gordon's cause of action accrued after the effective date of section 768.73 and the contingent fee contract was entered into after the statute went into effect; hence the statute did not impair any preexisting contractual rights of Gordon's attorney.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield (2019)
“Based on the statute's specific language and well-established Florida law, we hold that the applicable version of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the instant wrongful death cause of action accrued on…”
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF (2018)
“disease that caused the Engle class member’s death and gave rise to this claim manifested after October 1, 1999, the trial court erred by declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards of punitive damages under the…”
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1995)
“If that judgment includes punitive damages, then those damages are subject to the provisions of section 768.73, Florida Statutes (1991). As recited in the majority, the statute requires that in "any civil action" 60 percent of a punitive damage award shall be paid to the state.”
— 768.73(b)(2)(c) — 1 case
— 768.73(l)(a) — 17 cases
Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow (2010)
“§ 768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . It is a significant harm we ourselves have previously recognized in a case of strikingly similar circumstances.”
— 768.73(l)(a)(b) — 1 case
— 768.73(l)(b) — 6 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin (2010)
“Section 768.73, Florida Statutes (2005) provides, in pertinent part: (l)(a) In any civil action based on negligence, strict liability, products liability, misconduct in commercial transactions, professional liability, or breach of warranty, and involving willful, wanton, or…”
— 768.73(l)(c) — 3 cases
Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow (2010)
“§ 768.73(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). . It is a significant harm we ourselves have previously recognized in a case of strikingly similar circumstances.”
— 768.73(l)(c)(2) — 1 case
— 768.73(l)(d) — 1 case
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.