It is not uncommon for a product liability plaintiff to base a claim for punitive damages on little more than the same allegations that undergird a strict liability or negligence claim, while adding that the defendant knew that the product was unsafe or that the warnings were inadequate and marketed the product regardless. While that approach has worked at times in the past, recent decisions from Florida’s Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal remind us that Florida imposes a high bar on punitive damages claims. Specifically, these courts highlighted several key points related to claims of punitive damages in product liability cases: (1) Florida’s statutory requirements for punitive damages are more stringent than some other states (specifically, California) and, therefore, orders from other states awarding punitive damages are unpersuasive; (2) Florida law presumes a product is not defective if it complies with applicable government regulations; (3) the level of negligence required to plead punitive damages in Florida requires conduct equivalent to establishing criminal manslaughter; and (4) the Florida Supreme Court has all but eliminated punitive damage awards in product liability cases. These cases are discussed in further detail below.
In Monsanto Co. v. Behar, —So.3d—, 2025 WL 1646538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 11, 2025), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s order allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s herbicide product caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He sought to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The trial court granted that request, and defendant appealed.
On de novo review, the Third District Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff relied heavily on a few points to support his punitive damages claim. First, he alleged the International Agency for Research of Cancer had published a monograph that stated a chemical in the herbicide was “probably carcinogenic to humans.” He also alleged that the defendant hired two independent laboratories to perform testing on the chemical, and those laboratories were accused of falsifying records and results. Several of the lab executives committed fraud. Plaintiff pointed to evidence that mid-level employees of the defendant discussed how the company should address the product’s classification as a Group C carcinogen and that the defendant’s toxicologist advised that further testing should be done to confirm a finding that the herbicide may be genotoxic. Finally, the plaintiff took issue with studies he claimed the defendant “ghost-wrote.”
The appellate panel deemed these to be “[u]nsupported, salacious allegations, a scientific outlier, and isolated internal correspondence by mid-level employees—quoted out of context.” Noting that the United States Environmental Protection Agency “continuously reevaluated glyphosate and approved it for use” and “found that a cancer warning label would be false and misleading,” the appellate panel cited Florida’s presumption of nondefectiveness for products that comply with applicable government regulations and held that the plaintiff “failed to make a reasonable showing which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages.” In other words, the plaintiff fell short of demonstrating intentional misconduct or gross negligence. In so holding, the appellate panel also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s exposure to punitive damages in three other cases — all in California — was proof that he met the standard in this case. The panel reminded that Florida’s statutory requirements for punitive damages against a corporation are unique and more stringent than those of California.
Before Behar, in February 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a similar trial court order granting leave to amend. Tesla, Inc. v. Banner, —So.3d—, 2025 WL 610816 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2025). In Banner, the plaintiff alleged that two “Enhanced Autopilot” features on the decedent’s vehicle had malfunctioned and contributed to a fatal accident. After expert discovery, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. In support of that claim, the plaintiff cited the opinion of its own expert witness that the defendant had caused the decedent’s death in “as many as twenty ways” and claimed that the defendant knew the “Enhanced Autopilot” features were defective based on (1) inadequate design, testing, and manufacture;, (2) government investigations, recommendations, and warnings; and (3) numerous prior incidents of alleged product failure but continued marketing of the product as safe.
The trial court granted leave to add the punitive damages claim, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reminded that the standard is “whether [the defendant] exhibits a reckless disregard for human life equivalent to manslaughter by designing and marketing [the product].” See Valladares v. Bank of Am. Corp., 197 So. 3d 1, 11 (Fla. 2016) (citing Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16, 18–19 (Fla. 1959)) (“[The Florida Supreme Court] has recognized that the required level of negligence for punitive damages is equivalent to the conduct involved in criminal manslaughter.”). Applying that standard, the appellate panel concluded that the defendant car manufacturer survived the criminal manslaughter analysis. It noted, for example, that the record did not support a finding that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known its product was unsafe. To the contrary, the evidence showed that the product was “state-of-the-art” and complied with all industry and regulatory standards. The panel concluded with a reminder that “the Florida Supreme Court has all but eliminated punitive damage awards in product liability cases.”
Punitive damages are “reserved for only the most egregious cases.” Friedler v. Faena Hotels & Residences, LLC, 390 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). Behar and Banner serve as further examples that Florida law “presumes that punitive damages claims will be the exception in civil actions, not the rule.” McLane Foodservice Inc. v. Wool, 400 So. 3d 757, 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). Defendants and defense counsel should take particular note of how Behar and Banner credited the respective defendants’ compliance with applicable regulatory guidelines when holding that the exacting standard for punitive damages had not been met. When such evidence is available, it should be featured in arguments against punitive damages.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
