Florida limits when a business that sells alcohol can be held responsible for what a customer does after leaving. Under Section 768.125, Florida Statutes, a vendor who serves a person of lawful drinking age is generally not liable for injuries caused by that person’s intoxication. The statute recognizes two exceptions, one for willfully and unlawfully selling or furnishing alcohol to a person under the lawful drinking age, and one for knowingly serving a person habitually addicted to alcohol. Most dram shop litigation in this state is an argument about whether the facts fit one of those exceptions.
We defend restaurants, bars, hotels, nightclubs, event venues, and package and convenience retailers, along with the carriers that insure them. A dram shop count almost never arrives alone. It is usually attached to a serious injury or death case against an intoxicated driver, and it has to be defended alongside that claim, with attention to the liquor liability and general liability policies, the lease, and any security or promoter agreements that bear on who ultimately pays.
Both statutory exceptions turn on what the establishment knew, and that is where these cases are decided. We develop the record on identification and service policies, staff training and certification, point-of-sale and receipt data, surveillance footage, and what witnesses actually observed about the patron that night. Where a plaintiff cannot show willful service to a minor or knowing service to a habitually addicted patron, the claim should not reach a jury, and we litigate it on that basis.
Plaintiffs often plead that a patron was overserved or visibly intoxicated and treat that as enough. Under Florida’s statute it generally is not. We hold both the pleadings and the proof to the exceptions the legislature actually wrote.
The damages in these cases are frequently severe, which means the venue is defended the same way the firm defends any catastrophic matter. Causation is examined closely, comparative fault is developed early, and apportionment is preserved, including the fault of the patron and of any other party responsible for the collision.
These matters usually involve liquor liability, general liability, and umbrella coverage at once, and often a landlord, security contractor, or event promoter carrying its own policy and its own indemnity obligation. We review the coverage and the contracts at the outset, tender where the documents support it, and keep the defense and the coverage position moving together rather than on separate tracks.
When we are brought in early, we work with the venue and its carrier to preserve surveillance footage before it is overwritten, secure receipts and point-of-sale records, document staffing and training, and take statements while witnesses can still recall the evening. A great deal of what decides a dram shop case is gone within thirty days of the incident.
Restaurants and bars, hotels and resorts, nightclubs and entertainment venues, package and convenience stores, event operators, and the liquor liability and general liability carriers behind them. Many of these engagements reach the firm through its insurer and third-party administrator relationships within days of an incident.
Our clients include physician practices across specialties, PIP clinics, surgery centers, diagnostic providers, and the management companies that support them. The firm represents providers in clawback and recoupment matters arising from the full range of carriers operating in Florida, including major P&C carriers such as Allstate, State Farm, Progressive, GEICO, USAA, Liberty Mutual, and Travelers, and commercial health and managed care payers such as UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and Florida Blue. The firm also handles matters involving Medicare administrative contractors, Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid managed care organizations, and AHCA.
The statute carries much of the defense if the case is built around it. We keep the burden where the legislature placed it, develop the facts that bear on the two exceptions, and position the case for summary judgment when the record supports that motion.
The rest of the defense looks like any high-exposure injury case. Damages are examined rather than conceded, apportionment is preserved, coverage and risk transfer run alongside the merits, and the file is built on the assumption it may be tried. Cases prepared that way tend to resolve on better terms when they resolve.
That the establishment willfully and unlawfully sold or furnished alcohol to someone under the lawful drinking age, or knowingly served a person habitually addicted to alcohol, and that the resulting intoxication caused the injury. Ordinary service to an adult customer is not a basis for liability under the statute.
