Status of Punitive Damage Law
A series of recent United States Supreme Court decisions have defined the standard for imposition of punitive damages.
In State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the Supreme Court applied the guidepost it had previously established in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). The Gore decision directed appellate courts reviewing punitive damages awards to consider the following three factors: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the relationship between the actual and potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
In State Farm, the Supreme Court emphasized that, of the three Gore factors, the single most important indicator of the reasonableness of the punitive damage award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. The Supreme Court then applied the five factors it had previously set forth in Gore to measure the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct: whether the harm was physical or economic; whether the tortuous conduct evinced an indifference to or reckless disregard for the health or safety of others; whether the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and whether the harm resulted from intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Phillip Morris v. Williams, Number 05-1256, on October 31, 2006. In Phillip Morris, the Supreme Court will, for the first time, be asked to apply the Gore guideposts to a case involving the death of a plaintiff - a long time smoker who died of lung cancer - rather than a case of merely economic damages. In Phillip Morris, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the punitive damage award to the family of a deceased smoker more than one hundred times the amount of actual damages. Phillip Morris' appeal presents two questions to the court: (1) whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to crime can override the Constitution's requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff; and (2) whether due process permits a jury to punish the defendant for the effect of its conduct on non-parties.
DEFENDING A COMPANY IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES CASE
Punitive damages often represent a significant, if not the most significant, exposure a company faces in litigation. Dealing with punitive damages must be part of a bigger litigation strategy. It is critical that a company, in conjunction with trial counsel, prepare a comprehensive plan of action to avoid, or minimize, the company's exposure to punitive damages. The plan of action should include discovery and witness selection intended to demonstrate the difference between any mistakes which were made, and conduct which was intended to cause harm. At trial, effort must be made to select jurors who will rationally analyze the evidence, rather than base their findings exclusively on anger or sympathy, to allow a chance for a positive outcome for the company.
INSURABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES
There is currently no clear guidance from either the Texas Legislature or the Texas Supreme Court on the issue of whether Texas public policy prohibits a liability insurance provider from indemnifying an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence. Texas appellate courts have long wrestled with the issue, and have reached different conclusions. Some courts have found that parties should be allowed to enter into contracts freely, and ensure that the insurers comply with their contractual obligations. See Am. Intern. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Triton Energy, Ltd., 52 SW.3d 337 (Tex. App. - Dallas, 2001). Other court have found that insuring punitive damages violates public policy, as it defeats the purpose of awarding punitive damages (to punish the wrongdoer and to deter similar behavior in the future), by permitting the wrongdoer to shift the burden of paying the punitive damages to its insurer. See Milligan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 940 SW.2d 228 (Tex. App. - Houston, 1997).
The Texas Supreme Court has thus far refused to address the issue of whether punitive damages are insurable. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has certified questions concerning punitive damage awards to the Supreme Court of Texas, in a case filed in August 2004, which is currently pending before the Texas Supreme Court. See Fairfield Insurance Company v. Stevens Martin Paving, L.P., 381 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2004).
Related Tags: insurance, law, personal injury, civil, damage, supreme court, punitive, patrick madden, case law
Patrick Madden is a shareholder with the Dallas law firm Macdonald Devin, P.C. His practice focuses on civil litigation and client counseling on risk management and avoidance. He can be contacted at 214-744-3300 or http://www.macdonalddevin.com
Your Article Search Directory : Find in ArticlesRecent articles in this category:
- How to Hire a Personal Injury Attorney Toronto
There is no question that suffering from a personal injury is an incredibly difficult thing to have - Finding the Best Personal Injury Lawyer
Should you be the victim of an accident that just simply was not your fault and you have received an - DUI Perpetrators Must Seek Expert Help
It is obvious, as we progress further into the future, that behavior that puts others at risk is not - To Find the Best New York Attorney Buffalo is Still the Best Choice
If you need an attorney in New York, you would surely have a lot of options. New York has 10 cities - If You Need a Great Wisconsin Attorney Madison is the Way to Go
Are you in need of a great Wisconsin attorney? If you are from Wisconsin and need a great attorney M - What Is The Importance Of An LLP Agreement
An LLP agreement is an important contract, since without such a document the Limited Liability Partn - Personal Injury Lawyers - Get Help at Your Doorstep When Injured
As soon as you are involved in an accident, it is usually quite common for you to be injured maybe i - Personal Injury Lawyers - Knowing If You Are Entitled For a Claim
No doubts accidents do take place; however that does not mean that you should take up the liabilitie - Personal Injury Lawyers - Claiming Compensation For Your Injuries Some Tips
When you are injured, the next thing is you should know what legal rights you have; this will provid - Personal Injury Lawyers Help Victims of Car Accident Claim Financial Damages
People living in Toronto go to work through different modes of transports like trains, buses and car
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Mesothelioma Lawyer - Asbestos Attorney - Mesothelioma Lawsuits & Lung Cancer Information
Mesothelioma is one of the most tragic diseases ever to strike the working man. Due to decades of m - Michigan Personal Injury Lawyer Courts
The Michigan Courts were created by the Constitution of 1963, Article VI, and Section 1, under which - What is Entrapment?
Question: What is entrapment?Criminal Defense Lawyer: Entrapment is a defense raised by a defendan - Top 10 Tips On How To Win Your Road Traffic Accident Case
If you happen to be pursuing this thing right now then here are the top ten tips on how to win your - Agency Law
Agency Law The origins of the doctrine of necessitous intervention by someone who is in a legal rel - Procedure Of DWI In U.S.A.
ALR (Administrative License Revocation) A Program to suspend the driving license Of Drivers Which a - Mesothelioma Lawsuits Surging in United States
Mesothelioma is a cancerous disease where malignant cells develop in the lining of the chest or the - Forensic DNA Testing
Forensics is defined as the study of evidence found at a crime scene and used in a court of law. For - Arizona Drunk Driving Law, Az Drunk Driving Law & Arizona Drunk Driving Charges
Arizona drunk driving is one of the most common and deadly mistakes in Arizona while driving. Defens - Worried About the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Do you work for a financial institution that collects debts? If so, do you know whether the Fair De