The Fourth District Court of Appeal on October 7, 2026, again reversed in part orders that let Isaac and Laura Perlmutter seek punitive damages against an insurer and one of its employees, this time on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. In Federal Insurance Company v. Perlmutter, Nos. 4D2022-1558, 4D2022-1560 and 4D2022-1562, Judge Conner wrote for the panel, joined by Judges Levine and Klingensmith. The court affirmed as to one defendant, Harold Peerenboom, without discussion, and reversed as to Federal Insurance Company and its employee William Douberley.
The history
The Fourth District first reversed in 2023, in Federal Insurance Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision and sent the case back for the Fourth District to apply clarified standards. Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026).
The court described the Supreme Court’s clarifications this way. A trial court deciding whether to allow a punitive damages claim considers only the claimant’s evidence. The test is whether a reasonable person could conclude from it that the defendant committed intentional misconduct or gross negligence, without applying the clear-and-convincing standard. For an employer sued on a vicarious theory, the claimant’s evidence must also satisfy section 768.72(3). And because punitive damages “never stand alone,” the request must be reviewed in the context of the underlying claims.
The pleading
The Perlmutters’ proposed counterclaim alleges a conspiracy to collect and test their genetic information without consent and to manipulate the results to falsely implicate them in illegal activity. The court said the main problem was that the counterclaim repeatedly refers to “Conspirators,” lumping the defendants together without saying which of them did what. It also found no clear allegation that Douberley intended to fabricate false evidence or acted for personal profit or with a malicious motive. The counterclaim asserts intentional misconduct, not gross negligence, so the court rejected the argument that the orders could be affirmed on a gross negligence showing.
The evidence as to Douberley
The court held the proffer did not show Douberley had actual knowledge that he was violating section 760.40, Florida Statutes, or DNA information rights. “‘Should have known’ does not qualify in the context of intentional misconduct under section 768.72(2)(a),” it wrote, citing Selz v. McKagen, 386 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). On the abuse of process count, it said the depositions at issue were a proper use of process for their intended purpose, and found it “inconceivable that taking depositions authorized by a court order could be considered punitive conduct.” Without support on those counts, the conspiracy count failed too.
The evidence as to Federal
The Perlmutters sought to hold Federal vicariously liable, so section 768.72(3) governed. The court agreed with Federal that the “managing agent” concept applies to all three subsections, meaning someone like a corporate president or primary owner rather than a mid-level manager. It found no evidence that Douberley or the claims adjuster was a managing agent, said the Perlmutters’ proffer relied on “highly selective and parsed snippets,” and said one defendant’s intentional misconduct cannot establish another’s liability.
An additional ground
The court also held the proffer did not show that Douberley or Federal intended to harm the Perlmutters, as opposed to pursuing them over alleged defamation of Peerenboom and possible postal-law violations.
What the court did not decide
The court did not decide whether any of the Perlmutters’ allegations are true. The question was only whether the pleading and proffer were enough to let a punitive damages claim proceed against these defendants. The court also declined to consider arguments first raised in supplemental briefing. The case is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, and the opinion is not final until rehearing is resolved.
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)