California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy

  • Another award reversed because plaintiff failed to present complete evidence of defendant’s financial condition (Trellis v. Thaler)

    This unpublished opinion is the latest in a long string of California appellate decisions reversing a punitive damages award because the plaintiff failed to present complete evidence of the defendant’s financial condition.

    The plaintiff presented evidence of the defendant’s income, but no evidence of the defendant’s liabilities or expenses. Many trial lawyers seem to think that’s good enough. It isn’t. As the Court of Appeal explained: ” ‘Normally, evidence of liabilities should accompany evidence of assets, and evidence of expenses should accompany evidence of income.’ ” Because plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof on this issue, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant on the claim for punitive damages.

  • Court of Appeal reaffirms rule that insurance bad faith, without more, does not warrant punitive damages (Bartel v. Chicago Title)

    This published opinion from the Sixth Appellate District reverses a trial court’s determination that an insurer did not act in bad faith, but it affirms the trial court’s determination that the insurer’s conduct, although tortious, did not warrant punitive damages.

    The decision reaffirms a 1990s opinion (Tomaselli v. Transamerica), which held that a plaintiff in an insurance bad faith case must do more than prove that the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable, in order to obtain punitive damages. The plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted ” ‘with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy.’ “

    Not every jurisdiction follows this rule. In New Mexico, for example, a plaintiff who proves insurance bad faith need not show that the insurer acted with an additional culpable mental state. (See Sloan v. State Farm).

  • Ventura County jury awards $1 million in punitive damages for bed bug bites

    LA Post reports that a Ventura County jury has awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages to two men who alleged they were bitten by bed bugs while staying at a hotel in Ventura.

    Awards of punitive damages in bed bug cases are not new, but the amount amount of the award in this case raises the bar. Back in 2003, Judge Posner penned a Seventh Circuit opinion that affirmed an award of $186,000 in punitive damages in a bed bugs case. That opinion made a splash at the time because the punitive damages were so much higher than the jury’s $5,000 compensatory damages award.

    It will be interesting to see whether the much larger punitive award in this case survives posttrial and appellate review.

  • Employer’s failure to terminate alleged harasser is not sufficient evidence of ratification (Montes v. SPS Technologies LLC)

    This unpublished opinion reinstates a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against his former supervisor, but rejects the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against his former employer.

    A California employer generally cannot be liable for punitive damages based on the acts of an employee, unless those acts were authorized or ratified by corporate management. (See Civil Code section 3294(b).)

    In this case, a plaintiff alleged that he was harassed by his former supervisor, and he sought punitive damages against his former employer on the theory that the employer ratified the harasser’s conduct after the fact. To prove ratification, he pointed to the fact after he filed an action for harassment, the employer did not terminate the alleged harasser or send him to training.

    The California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Seven) rejected that argument as unsupported by any authority. The court noted that an employer cannot ratify an employee’s misconduct unless they employer actually knew of the misconduct. The mere fact that someone alleged misconduct is not enough. There must be some evidence that the employer knew those allegations were actually true.

  • Delaware jury awards $271.2 million in punitive damages against Amgen

    A federal jury in Delaware has awarded $135.6 million in compensatory damages and $271.2 million in punitive damages against California-based Amgen Inc., according to this press release issued by the plaintiff.

    The plaintiff, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., accused Amgen of anticompetitive practices in pricing its drug Repatha, which competes with Regeneron’s Praluent.

    The large punitive damages award in this case and in the Walmart case (see below) are a reminder that punitive damages are regularly awarded in corporation-versus-corporation lawsuits. Policy discussions about punitive damages often mistakenly assume that punitive damages are awarded only in cases involving “little guy” consumers suing big corporations.

  • Arkansas jury awards $150 million in punitive damages against Walmart

    Reuters reports that a jury in federal court in Arkansas has awarded $72.7 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages against Walmart in a trade secrets case.

    The plaintiff is a startup company, Zest Labs, who claims that Walmart stole its trade secrets for reducing food waste.

  • Texas jury awards $480 million in punitive damages against crane company

    A jury in Texas has awarded $159 million in compensatory damages and $480 million in punitive damages against a crane company, TNT Crane & Rigging, according to this press release from the plaintiff’s law firm. The plaintiffs are the heirs of a man who was killed during a construction accident.

    Texas law caps punitive damages at a maximum of $750,000, except in cases where the defendant committed a felony. It seems likely that the defendant will file posttrial motions that seek to apply the cap to this case.

  • Georgia jury awards $2 billion against Monsanto in the latest Roundup lawsuit

    ABC news reports on a Georgia jury verdict against Monsanto, awarding $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages to a man who claims that exposure to the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer.

    By my count, this is at least the third time that a jury has awarded $2 billion in a Roundup lawsuit. See prior reports here and here. Those awards were both reduced by the trial judge, although the reduced awards were still enormous: $87 million and and $400 million.

    There have also been a number of defense verdicts, but those don’t typically generate front-page headlines. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, maintains a website that includes a list of all the trial results going in both directions.

    This is an aspect of our legal system that’s hard to explain or justify. If you bring a lawsuit alleging that you developed cancer after using Roundup, and you present the same type of scientific and medical evidence that other plaintiffs have presented, you might get a jury award for billions of dollars or you might get absolutely nothing.

  • James Harden ordered to pay $900,000 in punitive damages (Santopietro v. Harden)

    The Whittier Daily News reports that a Los Angeles County jury has ordered Clippers guard James Harden to pay $900,000 in punitive damages and  $450,000 in compensatory damages to the owner of a house Harden rented in 2019.

    Per the story, the homeowner accused Harden of damaging the house and damaging the homeowner’s relationship with his HOA. The story also says that the jury found Harden liable for “fraud,” but doesn’t explain what acts of fraud were alleged. Harden’s camp says the homeowner was trying to extort money from him.

    The story reports that the jury ordered Harden to “share in the payment” of the $450,000 compensatory damages with a management company and its owner. That probably means that that the management company and its owner were co-defendants, and they’ve all been found jointly and severally liable for the compensatory damages award.

  • “Monsanto PCB Appeal Seems to Divide Wash. High Court”

    This story in Law360 reports on arguments before the Washington Supreme Court in a case in which a jury awarded $135 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, based on allegations that chemicals leaked from light fixtures in a school.  We previously reported on the case here. At the core of the dispute is the fact that Washington law does not permit punitive damages, but the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to recover punitive damages by applying a mixture of Washington law and Missouri law.