Case Summary: Roque v. Swezy
Jurisdiction: Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 3D25-0235
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 23-16395-CA-01
Date: January 21, 2026
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Judge Thomas J. Rebull
Defamation, Defamation Per Se, and the Gatekeeping Role in Punitive Damages
This case explores an increasingly common procedural battleground in civil litigation: whether and how trial courts must evaluate competing evidentiary proffers when both sides seek leave to plead punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes. The Third District’s opinion reinforces the limited but critical gatekeeping role of trial courts and clarifies that granting one party leave to seek punitive damages does not preclude granting the same relief to the opposing party, even when the claims arise from the same factual dispute.
Background and Procedural Posture
Elizabeth Roque and Lewis Swezy were involved in a long-term romantic relationship spanning approximately ten years, during which they cohabitated and worked together at Swezy’s company, Centennial Management Corporation. Following the breakdown of the relationship, Roque filed suit alleging a sustained campaign of verbal and physical abuse, asserting claims including assault, battery, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Swezy answered and counterclaimed for defamation, alleging that Roque falsely told coworkers that he was:
- mentally ill,
- an alcoholic,
- a drug user, and
- physically abusive toward her.
Both parties sought leave to amend their pleadings to assert claims for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72.
Roque supported her motion with photographs, 911 call evidence, video stills, third party testimony, and medical records. Swezy opposed her motion and, in support of his own, filed an affidavit attesting to the allegedly false and reputation-damaging statements Roque made about him in the workplace.
The trial court granted both motions. Roque appealed, arguing that once the court found a reasonable evidentiary basis to allow her punitive damages claim, it was legally foreclosed from finding that Swezy’s counterclaim met the same threshold.
The Third District disagreed.
Issue on Appeal
Does a trial court’s finding that one party has established a reasonable evidentiary basis to plead punitive damages prevent the court from finding that the opposing party has also met that standard on a counterclaim arising from the same dispute?
Standard of Review
Orders granting leave to plead punitive damages are reviewed de novo. In performing this review, courts must:
- view the proffer in the light most favorable to the movant, and
- ensure that section 768.72’s gatekeeping function is respected.
Importantly, the statute confers on defendants a substantive right not to be subjected to punitive damage claims absent a reasonable evidentiary showing.
Legal Analysis
1. The Gatekeeping Function Under Section 768.72
Punitive damages are extraordinary and intended not to compensate, but to punish and deter egregious conduct. As a result, section 768.72 requires a trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery before allowing such claims to be pled.
The Third District acknowledged some tension in prior case law regarding whether courts may “weigh” competing proffers. Recent precedent, however, makes clear that:
- trial courts do not weigh evidence,
- do not evaluate witness credibility, and
- do not resolve factual disputes at this stage.
Instead, courts simply determine whether the movant’s proffer, if accepted as true, establishes a legally sufficient basis for punitive damages.
2. Competing Proffers Are Not Mutually Exclusive
Roque’s central argument failed because it misunderstood the purpose of the statute. Section 768.72 does not require the court to choose sides or determine which narrative is more credible. It merely asks whether each party, independently, has made the requisite evidentiary showing.
Accordingly, a trial court may permissibly conclude that:
- the plaintiff’s proffer supports punitive damages, and
- the defendant’s counterclaim proffer independently supports punitive damages.
The statute does not impose a zero sum framework.
3. Defamation Per Se and Punitive Damages
Swezy’s affidavit was sufficient because it alleged defamation per se, a category of defamation that carries unique legal consequences under Florida law.
Statements falsely accusing someone of:
- criminal conduct,
- substance abuse, or
- moral or professional unfitness
are actionable per se. In such cases:
- damages are presumed, and
- punitive damages may be awarded even absent proof of actual damages.
Florida courts have long recognized that reputation and personal dignity are interests of the highest order, warranting heightened protection.
By alleging that Roque falsely told coworkers he was mentally ill, an alcoholic, a drug user, and physically abusive, Swezy sufficiently pled defamation per se. His affidavit therefore provided a reasonable evidentiary basis to support punitive damages.
Holding
The Third District affirmed the trial court’s order granting both parties leave to amend their pleadings to assert claims for punitive damages.
Why This Case Matters
- Trial courts are gatekeepers, not factfinders, at the punitive damages stage.
- Competing punitive damages claims can coexist when each party independently satisfies section 768.72.
- Defamation per se remains a powerful basis for punitive damages in Florida, particularly when false statements impugn mental health, criminal conduct, or moral character.
- Litigants should understand that the punitive damages threshold is about legal sufficiency, not ultimate truth.
Today’s Insight
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”
— Mark Twain