Amy Dilday is a Partner at Englander Fischer in St. Petersburg, Florida and is Board Certified in Appellate Practice by the Florida Bar.
One Florida Supreme Court opinion released this month received recognition in forums outside the state: Fried v. State, in which the court held that local governments and officials are not immune from civil actions and penalties for violating the State’s preemption on regulating firearms and ammunition. The court also decided a certified question on excessive punitive damages in wrongful death actions and issued three opinions amending various rules of court.
Fried v. State, No. SC21-917 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2023). In Fried, several municipalities, counties, and elected officials sought to have provisions of section 790.33, Florida Statutes (2021) declared invalid. No. SC21-917 at 5-6. The statute preempts local regulation of firearms and ammunition, reserving regulation to the State. Id. at 2-5. It permits civil penalties and actions against local governmental entities and persons who violate it—including up to $5000 in civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and capped damages for a prevailing plaintiff who was adversely affected by a local ordinance, regulation or rule. Id. at 4-5. None of the petitioners had enacted any prohibited ordinances or regulations. Id. at 6. Rather, they challenged the provisions “alleging constitutional violations and violations of legislative immunity and governmental function immunity.” Id. at 6-7. The circuit court invalidated the provisions, finding that the penalties violated legislative immunity and that civil actions would violate local governments’ immunity for discretionary government functions. Id. at 7-8. The First District Court of Appeal, however, in State v. City of Weston, 316 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), reversed the circuit court’s findings, holding that the statutory provisions were valid and enforceable. Fried, No. SC21-917 at 8-9.
The supreme court affirmed the First District’s holding. As to legislative immunity, the court recognized that it was a common law doctrine that could be (and was) abrogated by the legislature when it enacted the preemption statute. Id. at 12. Both the First District and the supreme court noted that “‘legislative immunity does not shield individuals who knowingly and willfully act contrary to or beyond the limits of state law.’” Id. at 17 (quoting City of Weston, 316 So. 3d at 404). As to governmental function immunity, the court looked to “‘the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor,’” to determine whether the conduct was a discretionary function immune from tort liability. Id. at 21-22 (quoting Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912, 918 (Fla. 1985)). It concluded, “to engage in conduct that is prohibited by statute is not a discretionary function.” Id. at 22.
Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, No. SC21-175 (Fla. Jan. 5, 2023). In Coates, the supreme court answered a question on punitive damages certified as great public importance from the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The question, rephrased by the court, was: “Does the trial court in a wrongful death action abuse its discretion by denying remittitur of a punitive damages award that does not bear a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered by the statutory beneficiaries?” Coates, No. SC21-175 at 3. The court answered the question affirmatively and approved the Fifth District’s opinion in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Coates, 308 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
In the underlying wrongful death action, the jury awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages to the decedent’s children (reduced based on comparative fault) but awarded $16 million in punitive damages against the tobacco company. Coates, No. SC21-175 at 3-4. The tobacco company sought a remittitur, claiming the punitive damages were excessive in light of the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Id. at 5. The circuit court denied the remittitur, but the Fifth District reversed, and certified the question to the supreme court. Id. at 5.
The court’s affirmative answer was based on sections 768.73 and 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 789.73 “caps a punitive damages award in relation to the compensatory damages award at a 3:1 ratio.” Id. at 7. Section 768.74 “establishes five ‘criteria’ that the trial court ‘shall consider’ ‘[i]n determining whether an award is excessive … in light of the facts and circumstances’” of the case. Id. at 8 (quoting § 768.74(5)) (alteration in original). The court noted that even if facts and circumstances would permit an excessive punitive damages award, the award still must analyze whether it meets the five criteria, one of which being that the award bears “‘a reasonable relation to the amount of the damages proved and the injury suffered.’” Id. at 10 (quoting § 768.74(5)(d)). It noted that $16 million in punitive damages was not reasonably related to the $150,000 compensatory damages award.
The personal representative contended that because the Wrongful Death Act limits compensation for beneficiaries, an action for wrongful death should create an exception to the reasonable relation requirement for punitive damages to include consideration of the decedent’s death. Id. at 11-12. The court disagreed. Id. at 12-13. It concluded that the Act remedies only injuries “‘for the living and not the dead,’” and therefore, the decedent’s death cannot be the “injury suffered” for purposes of a punitive damages award. Id. at 12-13 (quoting Martin v. United Sec. Servs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 765, 769 (Fla 1975)).
Rules Amendments:
In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.013 and 8.350, No. SC22-1674 (Fla. Jan. 5, 2023). The rules were amended in response to newly enacted legislation. The revisions require motions to suspend supervised release or secure detention to be in writing and make new provisions for hearings. Comments are permitted through March 21, 2023.
In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 and 1.650, No. SC22-1715 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2023). The rules were amended in response to newly enacted legislation. Rule 1.070’s title is changed to “Service by Publication or Any Other Means,” with a corresponding wording change in the rule. Rule 1.650 is changed so that references to “notice” is now “service of notice.” Comments are permitted through April 4, 2023.
In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.235, No. SC23-66 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2023). The court, on its own motion, amended the rule “to account for the establishment of a sixth district court of appeal.” Comments are permitted through April 10, 2023.
