Home›Case Law Updates
Florida Case Law Updates
Florida injury law does not stand still. Our attorneys track new decisions from the Florida Supreme Court and Florida’s district courts of appeal and publish written analyses of the rulings that change how personal injury cases are pled, litigated, and tried — presented here as prepared by our legal team.
Decisions That Change Florida Injury Litigation
Each update below is a written analysis prepared by a Shiner Law Group attorney — the issue before the court, the holding, the procedural history, and the practical implications for personal injury litigation in Florida. Fellow attorneys are welcome to use these updates in their own practice; injured Floridians will find a plain-English companion article linked within each update.
Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Goga: Fraud on the Court and Functional-Limitation Testimony
Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Goga, No. SC2024-0669, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 1051 (Fla. July 9, 2026)
The Florida Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal with prejudice of a premises-liability action after surveillance contradicted the plaintiff’s repeated sworn statements that she could not perform certain physical activities at all. The Court clarified the appellate framework for fraud-on-the-court dismissals and confirmed that when deception permeates the proceeding, the sanction can reach the entire action — including damages otherwise supported by objective evidence. A critical lesson on the difference between testimony of absolute inability and qualified descriptions of pain and limitation.
Punitive Damages After Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co.
Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026); § 768.72, Fla. Stat.
In a unanimous 7–0 decision, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a long-standing conflict among Florida’s district courts: a claimant seeking leave to plead punitive damages under section 768.72(1) need only make a reasonable evidentiary showing. Trial courts may not weigh competing defense evidence, resolve credibility, or apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading stage — a significant procedural shift that lowers barriers to pleading punitive damages and accelerates access to financial worth discovery.
MCS-90 Endorsement: Overview & Practical Considerations
Motor Carrier Act of 1980; 49 C.F.R. Part 387
The MCS-90 is a federally mandated endorsement that operates as a financial guarantee rather than ordinary insurance coverage: it can require an insurer to pay an injured member of the public even when the policy would otherwise deny coverage. This overview covers who must carry the endorsement, the federal minimum financial responsibility amounts, the insurer’s right of reimbursement, and a step-by-step framework for investigating whether an MCS-90 applies using FMCSA and SAFER records.
Personal Injury Claims Involving Autonomous Vehicles in Florida
§§ 316.85, 316.86, 627.749, Fla. Stat.
With no reported Florida decisions yet addressing injury claims from fully autonomous vehicle accidents, the governing framework is statutory: section 316.85 deems the automated driving system — not a human occupant — the legal operator, section 627.749 mandates $1 million in primary liability coverage for on-demand autonomous networks, and section 316.86 shields original manufacturers from liability for third-party conversions. This update maps the available liability theories, from the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to product liability and negligent deployment.
Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc.: The Scope of Florida Rideshare Immunity
Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., No. 4D2025-0117 (Fla. 4th DCA May 13, 2026); § 627.748(18), Fla. Stat.
The Fourth DCA affirmed dismissal with prejudice of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against Lyft, holding that section 627.748(18) provides extraordinarily broad immunity to transportation network companies — reaching not only vicarious liability theories but claims alleging the company’s own negligence. The court observed the statute “appears to sweep in practically any claim” arising from injuries sustained during a ride, absent statutory noncompliance or criminal wrongdoing by the TNC, and confirmed dismissal is proper at the pleading stage.
Strict Liability for Dog-Caused Injuries Without a Bite
§§ 767.01, 767.04, Fla. Stat.; Jones v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985)
Florida law does not require a dog bite for strict liability to attach. Under section 767.01 and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Utica, a dog owner is virtually the insurer of the dog’s conduct — covering injuries from a dog knocking someone down, chasing a person and causing a fall, or running into the street and causing a crash. This update maps the interplay between sections 767.01 and 767.04, the comparative negligence framework, and the narrow “Bad Dog” sign defense.
Crecelius v. Rizzitano: Strict Enforcement of Case-Management Deadlines
Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1606 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 27, 2026); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 (2025)
In a deliberate shift away from the long-standing Binger rule, the Sixth DCA held that trial courts may exclude late-disclosed witnesses and experts for violating case-management deadlines without first conducting a prejudice analysis. Reinforced by amended Rule 1.200’s command that deadlines be “strictly enforced unless changed by court order,” the decision confirms the power to set deadlines inherently includes the power to enforce them — even where exclusion guts a party’s defense.
Alvarez v. Louis: Proving Medical Expenses Under Section 768.0427
Alvarez v. Louis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13342 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2026); § 768.0427, Fla. Stat.
In an early interpretation of Florida’s 2023 tort-reform medical damages statute, a federal court held that section 768.0427 does not bar a plaintiff who declined to use health insurance from recovering medical expenses merely because they introduced no evidence of what the insurer would have paid. The statute is an evidentiary gateway with a non-exhaustive list of admissible proof — not a mandatory evidentiary burden — and the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied.
The Accident Report Privilege in Florida
§ 316.066(4), Fla. Stat.; Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1984)
Statements made to law enforcement for the purpose of completing a crash report cannot be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal — but the privilege is narrower than many assume. Officer observations, BAC results, bystander witness statements, and spontaneous utterances all remain admissible, and under Anderson v. Mitchell the statute is a rule of inadmissibility rather than a true privilege, leaving protected statements typically discoverable. This update collects the pivotal cases defining the privilege’s scope.
Discovery Proportionality Under Amended Florida Rule 1.280
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280; Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2024)
Effective January 1, 2025, Florida adopted the federal proportionality standard for discovery, replacing the old “reasonably calculated” scope with a cost-benefit analysis weighing the issues’ importance, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, and burden versus benefit. Drawing on the federal decisions Florida courts will now look to — Xarelto, Smith v. Toyota, and Bard IVC Filters — this update previews how courts will limit shotgun discovery and what affirmative proportionality showings litigants must be prepared to make.
Why We Publish Case Law Updates
For Fellow Attorneys
Florida’s appellate courts regularly reshape the rules that govern injury litigation — pleading standards, evidentiary burdens, damages, and procedure. These updates are written the way lawyers actually use them: issue, holding, procedural history, and practice implications, with full citations.
For Injured Floridians
The law that applies to your case may have changed last month. When a decision affects everyday injury victims — how claims are pled, what compensation is available, what insurers can and cannot do — we publish a plain-English companion article on our blog and link it from the update.
Written by Our Trial Team
Every update is prepared by a practicing Shiner Law Group attorney — the same lawyers litigating these issues in Florida courtrooms. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar.
Referrals & Co-Counsel
Handling a Florida case affected by one of these decisions? Shiner Law Group welcomes attorney referrals and co-counsel arrangements statewide. Call our referral line at 1-800-364-4444.
Has a New Decision Affected Your Injury Claim?
Our attorneys apply the latest Florida case law to every case we handle. Get a free, confidential case review — no fee unless we win.
Case law updates on this page are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice, nor does reading them create an attorney-client relationship. The application of any decision depends on the specific facts of each case; consult a licensed Florida attorney about your situation. Shiner Law Group — Accident & Injury Lawyers. Attorney Advertising.