Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 768.73 (2025)
Punitive damages; limitation.
✓ 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
768.73 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, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
St. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 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 Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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 Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (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, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 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, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 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, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 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, 266 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 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. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stanley Martin, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Carole Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 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, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 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, 554 U.S. 471 (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 Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 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, 585 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 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, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 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…”
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
Goodin v. Bank of Am. N.A., 114 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 739 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
768.73(1)(a): 15 cases
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 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, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 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 Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (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.”
Basel v. McFarland & Sons, Inc., 815 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Miele v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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
Miller v. Arvest Cent. Mortg. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
768.73(1)(b): 4 cases
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 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 Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 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.”
Brinda Coates, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Fla. 2023).
768.73(1)(c): 6 cases
St. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 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 Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 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 Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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.”
Miller v. Arvest Cent. Mortg. Co. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Sharon Dresser v. Hal J. Webb (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
768.73(1)(d): 1 case
St. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 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 Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. v. Ziegler, 219 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
McCullough v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 789 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1990).
Peabody v. Rotan Mosle, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 1135 (M.D. Fla. 1987).
768.73(2)(a): 39 cases
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (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. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stanley Martin, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Carole Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 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, 266 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 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. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stanley Martin, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Carole Martin (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020).
768.73(2)(b): 20 cases
Gordon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 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, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 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, 266 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 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…”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson, 684 So. 2d 685 (Ala. 1996).
Philip Morris USA Inc. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stanley Martin, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Carole Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 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
Sontag v. State Dept. of Banking & Fin., 669 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
768.73(4): 5 cases
Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 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 Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 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, 585 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 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.”
Sontag v. State Dept. of Banking & Fin., 669 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
State v. Equip. Enter., Inc., 611 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
768.73(5): 8 cases
Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 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, 266 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 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. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stanley Martin, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Carole Martin, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 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 Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 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.”
Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Edwards, 695 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
768.73(b)(2)(c): 1 case
Wray (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2026).
768.73(l)(a): 17 cases
Lawnwood Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 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.”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Buonomo, 138 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991).
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
768.73(l)(a)(b): 1 case
Smith v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 846 F. Supp. 978 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
768.73(l)(b): 6 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 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. Buonomo, 138 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Sun Int'l Bahamas, Ltd. v. Wagner, 758 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Coral Cadillac, Inc. v. Stephens, 867 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 126 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
768.73(l)(c): 3 cases
Lawnwood Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 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.”
Flying Fish Bikes, Inc. v. Giant Bicycle, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
768.73(l)(c)(2): 1 case
Neill v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 1149 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
768.73(l)(d): 1 case
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 126 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
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.