Background
Isaac and Laura Perlmutter sought to amend their counterclaims to seek punitive damages against Harold Peerenboom, Federal Insurance Company, and Federal employee William Marvin Douberley. Their proposed pleading alleged that the defendants participated in a “DNA theft scheme” involving the collection, testing, and alleged manipulation of the Perlmutters’ genetic information to implicate them in hate-mail activity and harm Isaac Perlmutter’s business relationships.
The Fourth District initially reversed all three amendment orders. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision and remanded for reconsideration under its clarified standard for evaluating punitive-damages amendments under section 768.72, Florida Statutes. That standard requires the court to assess the claimant’s proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the claimant, without weighing it, while considering the proposed pleading and underlying claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed, without discussion, the order permitting punitive damages against Peerenboom. It reversed the orders as to Douberley and Federal and remanded.
As to Douberley, the proposed counterclaim did not sufficiently identify conduct by him that amounted to intentional misconduct—actual knowledge of wrongdoing and a high probability of resulting injury, followed by intentional pursuit of that conduct. The Perlmutters’ proffer also did not establish that Douberley knowingly violated DNA-information rights or committed punitive-level abuse of process by taking depositions authorized for, and useful to, Peerenboom’s defense. Because the conversion and abuse-of-process theories did not support punitive damages, the dependent conspiracy theory also failed.
Federal’s alleged liability was vicarious. The court held that the failure of the punitive claim against Douberley defeated a claim based on his conduct, and that the proffer did not show that Douberley or claims adjuster Tracy Murphy was a managing agent or that a managing agent knowingly condoned, ratified, or participated in intentional misconduct. The evidence also did not show that Federal intended improperly to harm the Perlmutters rather than pursue alleged defamation and possible postal-law violations.
Key Takeaways
- A punitive-damages amendment requires both a sufficiently specific proposed pleading and evidence supporting that pleading.
- Intentional misconduct under section 768.72 requires actual knowledge and specific intent; allegations that a defendant should have known are insufficient.
- Vicarious punitive liability against a corporation requires proof satisfying section 768.72(3), including qualifying conduct by corporate management or a managing agent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Florida Supreme Court’s remand guidance while reinforcing that courts must separately scrutinize the pleaded theory and evidentiary proffer before exposing a defendant to a punitive-damages claim and related financial-worth discovery.
It also underscores that collective allegations of a conspiracy cannot substitute for evidence of each defendant’s own intentional misconduct, and that corporate punitive liability requires proof tied to the statutory requirements for employers.