Florida SB 1506: Education

Bill Text

1506 
Civil Litigation 
2026-01-08T10:37:57Z 
Revising the criteria that the court must consider in determining whether an award of money damages is excessive or inadequate, etc. 
Original Filed Version 
2026 
S 
2026-07-01T00:00:00Z 
GB 
General Bill 
__ 

 Florida Senate - 2026 SB 1506 

 By Senator Yarborough 

 4-01475A-26 20261506__ 
 1 A bill to be entitled 
 2 An act relating to civil litigation; amending s. 
 3 768.74, F.S.; revising the criteria that the court 
 4 must consider in determining whether an award of money 
 5 damages is excessive or inadequate; making technical 
 6 changes; providing applicability; reenacting ss. 
 7 400.0238(1)(d), 429.298(1)(d), 768.73(1)(d), and 
 8 768.735(2)(c), F.S., relating to punitive damages, 
 9 respectively, to incorporate the amendment made to s. 
 10 768.74, F.S., in references thereto; providing an 
 11 effective date. 
 12 
 13 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 
 14 
 15 Section 1. Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, is amended to 
 16 read: 
 17 768.74 Remittitur and additur.— 
 18 (1) In any action to which this part applies in which 
 19 wherein the trier of fact determines that liability exists on 
 20 the part of the defendant and a verdict is rendered which awards 
 21 money damages to the plaintiff, it shall be the responsibility 
 22 of the court must, upon proper motion, to review the amount of 
 23 the such award to determine whether the if such amount is 
 24 excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances 
 25 that which were presented to the trier of fact. 
 26 (2) If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive 
 27 or inadequate, it must shall order a remittitur or additur, as 
 28 the case may be. 
 29 (3) It is the intent intention of the Legislature that 
 30 awards of damages be closely scrutinized subject to close 
 31 scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and 
 32 not excessive. 
 33 (4) If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or 
 34 additur does not agree, the court must shall order a new trial 
 35 in the cause on the issue of damages only. 
 36 (5) In determining whether an award is excessive or 
 37 inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to 
 38 the trier of fact and in determining the amount, if any, that 
 39 the such award exceeds a reasonable range of damages or is 
 40 inadequate, the court shall consider the following criteria: 
 41 (a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, 
 42 passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact; 
 43 (b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the 
 44 evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the 
 45 case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable; 
 46 (c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of 
 47 damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by 
 48 speculation and conjecture; 
 49 (d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation 
 50 to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and 
 51 (e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence 
 52 and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by 
 53 reasonable persons; 
 54 (f) Whether there is a rational, nonarbitrary connection 
 55 grounded in the evidence between the injuries suffered and the 
 56 amount of an award of noneconomic damages; and 
 57 (g) Whether the amount of an award of noneconomic damages 
 58 resulted from references to objects or values that did not have 
 59 a rational connection to the facts of the case. 
 60 (6) It is the intent of the Legislature to vest the trial 
 61 courts of this state with the discretionary authority to review 
 62 the amounts of damages awarded by a trier of fact in light of a 
 63 standard of excessiveness or inadequacy. The Legislature 
 64 recognizes that the reasonable actions of a jury are a 
 65 fundamental precept of American jurisprudence and that such 
 66 actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and 
 67 discretion. However, it is further recognized that a review by 
 68 the courts in accordance with the standards set forth in this 
 69 section provides an additional element of soundness and logic to 
 70 our judicial system and is in the best interests of the citizens 
 71 of this state. 
 72 Section 2. This act applies to causes of action pending on 
 73 or after July 1, 2026. 
 74 Section 3. For the purpose of incorporating the amendment 
 75 made by this act to section 768.74, Florida Statutes, in a 
 76 reference thereto, paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 
 77 400.0238, Florida Statutes, is reenacted to read: 
 78 400.0238 Punitive damages; limitation.— 
 79 (1) 
 80 (d) This subsection is not intended to prohibit an 
 81 appropriate court from exercising its jurisdiction under s. 
 82 768.74 in determining the reasonableness of an award of punitive 
 83 damages that is less than three times the amount of compensatory 
 84 damages.