## Facts

- Thomas Waters worked as a tile setter from the late 1950s through 1988 and alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products.
- Waters and his wife sued multiple manufacturers, including W.R. Grace & Co.–Conn., seeking compensatory and punitive damages for asbestosis.
- Before trial, Grace moved for partial summary judgment to strike punitive damages, arguing (1) its conduct was insufficient for punitive damages as a matter of law, (2) prior punitive awards elsewhere triggered a judge-made “standard ruling” barring further punitive awards for the same conduct, and (3) successive punitive awards violated due process.
- The trial court applied the “standard ruling” and entered partial summary judgment eliminating punitive damages; the case proceeded only on compensatory damages.
- A jury found Grace 50% liable, a codefendant 40% liable, and Waters 10% comparatively negligent; compensatory damages were reduced accordingly and judgment entered.

## Issues

1. Whether prior punitive-damages awards against a defendant for a course of conduct preclude later punitive-damages awards based on the same conduct under Florida law.
2. Whether allowing successive punitive-damages awards for the same conduct violates due process.
3. What procedures are required in Florida to limit arbitrariness and excessiveness when punitive damages are sought, including how prior punitive awards should be treated.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court approved the district court’s ruling and rejected the categorical “standard ruling” that barred punitive damages after a prior award for the same conduct.
- The Court held that prior punitive-damages awards do not, by themselves, preclude later punitive-damages awards arising from the same course of conduct.
- The Court reversed the partial summary judgment striking punitive damages, reinstated Waters’s punitive-damages claim, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
- The compensatory-damages judgment and comparative-fault allocations were left intact.
- The Court required punitive-damages claims to be tried in a bifurcated manner and directed that prior punitive awards for the same conduct be admissible in the punitive phase as mitigation evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence and may be available when conduct is fraudulent, malicious, or willful and wanton, or shows conscious disregard for others’ rights.
- A prior punitive-damages award for the same course of conduct does not operate as an automatic bar to punitive damages in subsequent cases.
- Due process does not categorically prohibit punitive damages or successive punitive awards; it requires procedures and judicial review sufficient to prevent arbitrary or grossly excessive punishment.
- In Florida, punitive-damages cases must be bifurcated: liability and compensatory damages are determined first; punitive entitlement and amount are determined in a separate phase.
- Evidence of prior punitive-damages awards for the same conduct must be admitted in the punitive phase as mitigation evidence to inform the jury’s determination of any additional punishment.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that earlier punitive-damages awards against a defendant do not extinguish later plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claims based on the same misconduct; instead, Florida courts must manage fairness and due process through bifurcated trials, admission of prior punitive awards as mitigation evidence, and post-verdict judicial review.


W.R. Grace & Co.–Conn. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1994)