Florida Third District Court of Appeal building in Miami, used for Swift Law Insights articles on appellate court decisions.

Florida Third DCA Rejects Punitive Damages Claim in Roundup Lawsuit

BySwift Law, PA

Case: Monsanto Co. v. Behar, No. 3D24-0569 (Fla. 3d DCA June 11, 2025)

Lawrence Behar sued Monsanto (now Bayer) claiming that its herbicide product Roundup caused Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He later sought to amend his complaint to add punitive damages, alleging Monsanto knew about risks, manipulated scientific research, and misled regulators. The trial court allowed the amendment.

The Third DCA reversed that decision. It held that Behar did not present enough evidence to meet Florida’s high legal standard for punitive damages—which requires showing intentional misconduct or gross negligence under Section 768.72 of Florida law. The court said the allegations were “unsupported, isolated, or outlier” and did not show that Monsanto acted willfully or recklessly. It also emphasized that compliance with regulatory standards and scientific data can be strong defenses when evaluating whether punitive liability is appropriate.

Why It Matters
  • High bar for punitive claims: In Florida, it isn’t enough to allege improper conduct; plaintiffs must show clear, convincing evidence of intentional or grossly negligent misconduct. This ruling reinforces that punitive damages will only follow when conduct is severe and well-substantiated.
  • Regulatory compliance matters: Evidence that a product complies with government regulation and the scientific consensus can significantly weaken attempts to bring punitive claims—even when there are contrary allegations or internal concerns.
  • Legal risk and litigation strategy: Plaintiffs must gather strong supporting evidence early (not just isolated statements or speculation), and defendants have a good chance to defeat or limit punitive damages motions if evidentiary proof doesn’t meet Florida’s statutory standards.

Similar Posts