In an effort to address the problem of excessive, multiple punishment, the Florida Legislature enacted a statute that "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." The statute contains an escape hatch that allows for additional awards of punitive damages "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."
Surprisingly, in the nearly two decades since the statute was enacted, there have been almost no appellate decisions interpreting the statute. That changed in June, when the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held in Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. v. Ziegler that the statute applies whenever there has been a prior award of punitive damages for the same course of conduct and that there is no requirement that the award have been paid (as opposed to resolved via settlement).
As the court explained, the statute "speaks only in terms of a prior punitive damage 'award.' In fact, some derivation of the word 'award' appears eight times within this subsection. But, not once does any derivation of the word 'paid' appear." Because the statute "is clear on its face," the court declined to "infer any other meaning than the plain words chosen by the legislature."
The upshot of the decision is that plaintiffs will not be permitted to take discovery regarding the ultimate resolution of a punitive damages award. So long as an award has been returned, the only remaining question is whether the amount awarded "was insufficient to punish [the] defendant's behavior."
Originally published on July 6, 2017
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.