Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Collection Practices Plaintiffs Try End Run Around Florida Punitive Damages Laws
September 16, 2014

In Florida, debtor-side attorneys are asserting a novel legal argument to bring punitive damages claims at an earlier stage, pursuant to the civil remedies section of Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act, Section 559.77, Florida Statutes (the Act). These debtor-side attorneys claim that a reference to the availability of punitive damages in the Act allows plaintiffs to seek these damages in their initial complaint.

However, Florida has a statute that prevents plaintiffs from claiming punitive damages prior to a judicial determination that there is a basis for them. The statute creates a substantive right to litigants to be protected from baseless punitive damages, which, without the statute, could be asserted in any case. The plain language of Florida’s Punitive Damages Statute, Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, indicates that a litigant in "any civil action" has the right to adjudication prior to the presentation of a claim for punitive damages to the trier of fact. The Punitive Damages Statute applies to both statutory and common law claims. Indeed, as a matter of policy the right to be free from baseless claims for punitive damages is so essential that a court’s failure to follow Florida’s Punitive Damages Statute is subject to immediate certiorari review.

Though novel, the debtor-side argument ultimately fails because the simple reference to a plaintiff’s potential recovery of punitive damages in the Act does not obviate the broad substantive and procedural protections available under Florida’s Punitive Damages Statute. However, this argument is likely to reappear until tested at the appellate level. Florida courts have a long tradition of enforcing the State’s Punitive Damages Statute, so it will take more than a reference to a plaintiff’s potential to recover punitive damages at the end of a collection practices act case to cause the courts to bypass the punitive damages protections afforded all litigants.
Related Practices
Consumer Finance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.