Missouri Appellate Court Upholds Disproportionate Punitive Award Against One Defendant, While Tossing Punitive Award Against Co-Defendant

As we noted in a post earlier this year, the Missouri courts seem to produce more than their fair share of opinions on punitive damages issues. About a year ago we wrote a post addressing the errors in the Missouri Supreme Court’s excessiveness analysis in Lewellen v. Franklin and a second post about the court’s holding in the same case that Missouri’s cap on punitive damages violates the state constitution as applied to common-law causes of action.

Set of auto partsToday’s topic is the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision in Diaz v. AutoZoners, LLC.  Though adding to the bad case law on excessiveness, the decision makes some helpful law on the test for determining whether a parent company is an employer for purposes of employment-discrimination cases. Continue Reading

Federal District Court Issues Split Decision On Admissibility Of Evidence Bearing On Punitive Damages

As we have observed in a prior post, defendants in punitive damages cases often fail to develop evidence in mitigation of the amount of punitive damages, enabling the plaintiff to focus the jury on evidence about the defendant’s wealth and to argue—essentially with no resistance—that a substantial award of punitive damages will be necessary to change the defendant’s conduct in light of that wealth.

Hip ImplantBucking this trend, Wright Medical Technology and Wright Medical Group, the defendants in multidistrict litigation alleging defects in their hip implants, have developed evidence designed to persuade juries that large punitive awards would be unnecessary and counterproductive. In particular, the Wright Medical defendants have developed evidence about the various deleterious effects that a large punitive award might have.  They also have developed evidence relating to their good “corporate character.”

Continue Reading

Kentucky Supreme Court Sets Forth Helpful Principles On Liability For Punitive Damages

Buckle upCases in which an appellate court holds that a state’s standard for punitive liability was not satisfied even though there was sufficient evidence to support liability for the underlying causes of action are regrettably rare. But in Nissan Motor Co. v. Maddox, the Kentucky Supreme Court recently did just that and in the process set forth some principles that may be helpful to defendants in future cases.

Continue Reading

Chamber of Commerce Institute For Legal Reform Releases Report On Legal Climate In States Around The Country

ILR15077-HarrisReportCongratulations to the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform for its recently issued report on the legal climate of the various states. The report is a thoroughly researched and elegantly presented compilation of information about various elements of each state’s legal climate. Based on a survey of in-house counsel, the report ranks the states by overall legal climate, as well as on various aspects of the legal climate.

As in ILR’s previous two reports, Delaware is the overall winner, followed by Vermont, Nebraska, Iowa, and New Hampshire. (Notably, both Nebraska and New Hampshire ban punitive damages.) West Virginia ranks last, followed by Louisiana, Illinois, California, and (somewhat to my surprise) Alabama.

The report includes a very cool interactive map. Readers can click on a state and be brought to a page that is chock full of information about the state’s legal climate. The ILR also came up with a nifty video presentation on each state that is a take off on election night TV coverage.

Why Shady Grove Should Be No Impediment To Obtaining Bifurcation In Federal Court

As we have noted in prior posts, many states require courts to bifurcate punitive damages trials upon the defendant’s request. The question therefore arises whether a federal court sitting in diversity must or, at least should, require bifurcation when the applicable state law requires bifurcation.

Shady GroveMost federal courts that have confronted the issue have concluded that bifurcation is procedural and that, under Erie, they therefore need not adhere to the bifurcation requirements of the state whose substantive law governs the case. While at first blush, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. may appear to reinforce that conclusion, on closer inspection it does not affect the analysis one way or the other.

Continue Reading

Missouri Court Of Appeals Finds Juror Research Into Who Receives Punitive Damages Awards Non-Prejudicial

Self Employed ManThe Missouri courts seem to provide more than their share of material worthy of comment.  In Ross-Paige v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, decided on June 30, a jury had found for the plaintiff, a St. Louis police officer, on her claim of retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act.  After the jury awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages and found the defendant liable for punitive damages, a second phase was held to set the amount of punitive damages.

The jury set punitive damages at a staggering and manifestly excessive $7.2 million, which was reduced under Missouri’s statutory cap of five times compensatory damages to about $2.5 million after attorneys’ fees were added to the compensatory damages.  (As noted in a prior post, the Missouri Supreme Court has declared the cap statute unconstitutional as applied to common-law actions, but has upheld it as applied to statutory causes of action such as that in the instant case.)

Continue Reading

Montana Supreme Court Fails To Reach Constitutionality Of Punitive Damages Cap In Masters Group v. Comerica

sealA year ago, my colleagues Andy Frey and Rory Schneider wrote this post about a case in which the Montana Supreme Court had been asked to review, among other things, the trial court’s holding that the state’s cap on punitive damages is unconstitutional.  On July 1, the Montana Supreme Court decided the case—Masters Group International, Inc. v. Comerica Bank—on grounds that mooted the issue of the constitutionality of the cap.

To make a long story short, the court held that (i) the trial court erroneously failed to give effect to the provision in the parties’ agreement that required application of Michigan law; (ii) under Michigan law, the tort claims (and hence the punitive damages) were unsustainable; and (iii) an evidentiary error necessitated a new trial on the breach-of-contract claim.  Congratulations to our friend Jim Goetz on this excellent outcome for his client, Comerica.

As Andy Frey and I noted in a more recent post, the Montana Supreme Court may have another opportunity to address the constitutionality of the cap in Kelly Logging, Inc. v. First Interstate Bank, in which the trial court held the cap unconstitutional in the course of upholding a $16,760,000 punitive award.  The docket in that case reflects that no briefs have yet been filed and that the case is subject to mediation—so it is possible that a final determination of the constitutionality of the cap may be deferred still further.

Virginia Supreme Court Holds That Courts May Not Instruct Juries That Punitive Damages Are Disfavored

Virginia_supreme_court_sealThe drafting of jury instructions on punitive damages presents unique challenges for defense lawyers.  On the one hand, it is generally necessary to ask for an instruction that goes beyond existing law in order to preserve the argument that the law should be changed.  That is how the harm-to-nonparties issue was teed up in Philip Morris v. Williams.  And just importantly, because most pattern instructions on punitive damages are fairly perfunctory, it is often necessary to propose a more expansive alternative to ensure that the jury is adequately apprised of even existing law.

On the other hand, proposing an instruction that goes too far can result in reversal of a favorable verdict if the trial court goes along and gives it.  That is what happened in Cain v. Lee, a case recently decided by the Virginia Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Third Circuit Holds That Under Pennsylvania Law An Insured Against Whom Punitive Damages Have Been Imposed May Not Recover Those Punitive Damages As Compensatory Damages In Bad-Faith Action Against His Insurer

Insurance-Certificate-Glasses_15701162As a matter of public policy, Pennsylvania (like a number of other states) prohibits insuring against punitive damages.  But what happens if an insurer refuses to settle a case against a policyholder within policy limits and the policyholder then sustains an award of punitive damages?  That was the question decided by the Third Circuit in Wolfe v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Continue Reading

Why Criminal-Law Statute-Of-Limitations Principles Should Apply To Claims For Punitive Damages

Tall Case Grandfather Clock, Antique Empire Revival StyleThere are not many true affirmative defenses to punitive damages, much less ones that can be established on the face of the complaint.  One potential basis for dismissing a claim for punitive damages, which could be particularly useful in environmental cases alleging that conduct occurring in the distant past caused injuries that manifested only recently, involves the statute of limitations.

Although only a few courts have addressed the topic, there is a compelling conceptual argument that the statute of limitations for punitive damages should run from the date of the conduct for which punishment is sought, not the date of injury or discovery of injury, as would be the case for the underlying compensatory or remedial claims.  The basic idea is that the penal nature of punitive damages makes it appropriate to apply criminal-law limitations principles, under which the statute of limitations normally runs from commission of the wrongful act.

Continue Reading