A shuttle bus driver tapped the back of a car, nobody reported an injury at the scene, and the plaintiffs asked to add punitive damages because the driver may have lacked a passenger endorsement on her commercial license. The Third District Court of Appeal said that is not enough. In Limousines of South Florida, Inc. v. Levit, No. 3D26-0024, the court reversed an order allowing the amendment. The opinion was filed October 21, 2026, after the court denied rehearing and withdrew and replaced its earlier opinion.
The facts
Limousines of South Florida hired Catherine Rodriguez as a passenger shuttle bus driver. She held a valid Class B commercial driver’s license, but whether she had a valid passenger endorsement was disputed. Driving an empty shuttle bus, she “failed to timely brake and made slight contact with the rear” of Levit’s vehicle. Levit and three passengers sued in a 32-count complaint alleging various forms of negligence, then moved to amend to seek punitive damages. The trial court granted the motion, finding that letting Rodriguez transport passengers without the endorsement exposed the public to risk and showed conscious disregard for safety.
The standard
Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, requires a “reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant” that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The court cited the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026), which held that the “clear and convincing” standard does not apply at the pleading stage. The test is whether a reasonable person could conclude, from the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed intentional misconduct or gross negligence. Review of the order is de novo.
Intentional misconduct
The court said the statute requires evidence of “specific intent to pursue wrongful conduct despite actual knowledge of the high probability that injury would result.” A licensing or traffic violation, standing alone, does not meet that. Relying on Robertson v. Antoine, 423 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), applying that decision, the court said any missing endorsement “is a licensing deficiency, not a course of conduct.” The conduct that caused the harm was the failure to brake in time, and the proffer showed no evidence that Rodriguez drove wrongfully while knowing injury was highly probable.
Gross negligence
Gross negligence means conduct “so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.” The court cited Valladares v. Bank of America Corp., 197 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016), for the point that the required level is equivalent to the conduct involved in criminal manslaughter. Citing the Sixth District’s Mercer v. Saddle Creek Transportation and Mirlalda v. Mitchell and the Fourth District’s Creech v. Santomassino, the court said a statutory or licensing violation alone is not enough; the proffer needs “some ‘additional act’ demonstrating recklessness or a conscious disregard for the safety of others.”
The nexus problem
The court also held the endorsement issue lacked a direct link to the harm. The shuttle was empty, Rodriguez held a valid commercial license, and nothing in the proffer suggested the endorsement issue affected her ability to perceive traffic or brake. The court said a punitive damages determination “cannot rest on a hypothetical worst-case scenario rather than the conduct that actually caused the harm.” For the due process side of that point it cited State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), for the due process principle that punitive damages may not punish conduct unrelated to the plaintiff’s harm or rest on hypothetical claims.
The gatekeeping point
The court wrote that it is “paramount that trial courts understand their proper gatekeeping role” when reviewing proffers. It quoted a prior Third District case calling a punitive damages amendment a “game changer,” because it opens financial discovery that is otherwise off limits and can expose a defendant to uninsured losses.
Disposition
Judge Gordo wrote for a panel that included Judges Fernandez and Rebull. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The opinion is not final until disposition of any timely rehearing motion.
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Limousines of South Florida, Inc. v. Levit, No. 3D26-0024 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 21, 2026) (on motion for rehearing and certification of questions of great public importance). This article is general information, not legal advice.