Background
Isaac and Laura Perlmutter sought to amend their counterclaims to pursue punitive damages against Harold Peerenboom, Federal Insurance Co., and Federal employee William Marvin Douberley. They alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to collect and test the Perlmutters’ DNA without consent, manipulate the results, and falsely link them to hate mail directed at Peerenboom.
The Fourth District had initially reversed all three orders allowing the punitive-damages amendments. The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision and remanded for reconsideration under its clarified standards for section 768.72, Florida Statutes.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed, without discussion, the order allowing punitive damages against Peerenboom. It reversed the orders as to Douberley and Federal and remanded.
As to Douberley, the proposed counterclaim insufficiently identified conduct by him that amounted to intentional misconduct with a specific intent to harm the Perlmutters. The evidentiary proffer also did not reasonably show that he knowingly violated DNA-information rights, misused deposition subpoenas, or committed conduct sufficiently outrageous to support punitive damages.
As to Federal, the Perlmutters pursued only vicarious punitive liability. That theory failed because the claim against Douberley failed and because the proffer did not show that a Federal or Chubb managing agent knowingly participated in, condoned, ratified, or consented to intentional misconduct as required by section 768.72(3).
Key Takeaways
- A punitive-damages amendment requires both sufficiently specific allegations and an evidentiary proffer supporting those allegations.
- Intentional misconduct under section 768.72 requires actual knowledge and specific intent; a showing that a defendant should have known is insufficient.
- Vicarious punitive liability requires proof satisfying section 768.72(3), including qualifying conduct by corporate management or a managing agent.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Florida’s punitive-damages pleading procedure is a substantive gatekeeping mechanism. Courts must view a claimant’s proffer favorably at the amendment stage, but they may not rely on conclusory collective allegations or evidence that does not establish each defendant’s own culpable conduct.
For corporate defendants, the opinion underscores that employee-level alleged misconduct alone does not establish vicarious punitive exposure absent evidence meeting the statutory requirements for corporate participation, ratification, consent, or gross negligence.