Mynewsla.com reports that an L.A. Superior Court jury awarded $28 million in punitive damages, on top of $3 million in compensatory damages, in an age discrimination lawsuit against Sybron Dental Specialities, Inc. and KaVo Kerr Group.

A story yesterday reported that plaintiff’s counsel Carney Shegarian asked for an award of $73 million in punitive damages.  The jury may have thought they were compromising by awarding “only” $28 million.  As we have noted before, research has shown that the most significant predictor for a large punitive damages award is a large request.  (See Sunstein, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide.)  That is part of the reason why some courts prohibit plaintiffs from “anchoring” a punitive damages award by requesting a specific number. Clearly the trial court in this case didn’t follow that approach.

The story quotes Mr. Shegarian as stating that the award in this case may be the largest of its kind in Los Angeles legal history.  The defendants may try to use those quotes against him if they challenge the award in posttrial motions or on appeal.

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California has ruled that a class of Uber drivers cannot seek punitive damages in their lawsuit over the company’s imposition of a $1 “safe rides fee.” Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs, having insisted throughout the case that their claims arise from a contract with Uber, cannot pursue punitive damages because Civil Code section 3294 permits punitive damages only in an action “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.”

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California has ruled that a class of Uber drivers cannot seek punitive damages in their lawsuit over the company’s imposition of a $1 “safe rides fee.” Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs, having insisted throughout the case that their claims arise from a contract with Uber, cannot pursue punitive damages because Civil Code section 3294 permits punitive damages only in an action “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.”

Bloomberg reports that today a jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages, to a 68-year-old woman who claims she developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.

Last year, a similar California case ended in a defense verdict, but Johnson & Johnson was hit for $417 million in another case in which the plaintiff alleged that talc itself (not contaminated by asbestos) causes ovarian cancer.  The trial court vacated that award due to jury misconduct and other problems. 

The company says that its talc products do not contain asbestos or cause cancer, and it plans to appeal in this case (assuming that the trial court does not toss this award too).

Bloomberg reports that today a jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages, to a 68-year-old woman who claims she developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.

Last year, a similar California case ended in a defense verdict, but Johnson & Johnson was hit for $417 million in another case in which the plaintiff alleged that talc itself (not contaminated by asbestos) causes ovarian cancer.  The trial court vacated that award due to jury misconduct and other problems.

The company says that its talc products do not contain asbestos or cause cancer, and it plans to appeal in this case (assuming that the trial court does not toss this award too).

This unpublished opinion demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, California courts can find a punitive damages award excessive even when it is less than ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

A jury in this employment discrimination case awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages.  The trial court ordered a new trial conditioned on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduction in the punitive damages to $1 million.  The plaintiff accepted the remittitur and both sides appealed.

The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) affirmed across the board.  First, it rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff failed to prove malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent.  In the process, the court held that the defendant’s adoption of an anti-discrimination policy did not act as a shield against punitive damages, because although the company adopted the policy in good faith, it did not implement the policy in good faith.

Second, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering the remittitur from $7 million to $1 million.  The court noted that single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratios are not presumptively valid, especially when the compensatory damages itself is substantial or contains a punitive element.  The court noted that the compensatory damages award here was 19 times more than the plaintiff’s annual salary, and included a large emotional distress component, which has both a punitive aspect and a deterrent effect.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly reduced the award to a 1-to-1 ratio.

This unpublished opinion demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, California courts can find a punitive damages award excessive even when it is less than ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

A jury in this employment discrimination case awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages.  The trial court ordered a new trial conditioned on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduction in the punitive damages to $1 million.  The plaintiff accepted the remittitur and both sides appealed.

The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) affirmed across the board.  First, it rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff failed to prove malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent.  In the process, the court held that the defendant’s adoption of an anti-discrimination policy did not act as a shield against punitive damages, because although the company adopted the policy in good faith, it did not implement the policy in good faith.

Second, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering the remittitur from $7 million to $1 million.  The court noted that single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratios are not presumptively valid, especially when the compensatory damages itself is substantial or contains a punitive element.  The court noted that the compensatory damages award here was 19 times more than the plaintiff’s annual salary, and included a large emotional distress component, which has both a punitive aspect and a deterrent effect.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly reduced the award to a 1-to-1 ratio.

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that a jury this week awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages against Allstate Insurance in an employment case involving some unusual facts.   

According to the story, Michael Tilkey, a longtime Allstate employee, was arrested on domestic violence charges after an argument with his then-girlfriend.  Prosecutors dismissed he charges after Tilkey entered into a plea deal requiring him to attend anger-management classes. His ex-girlfriend, however, sent an email to Allstate accusing Tilkey of threatening her.  She demanded that the company investigate Tilkey’s conduct. Allstate fired him three months later, after concluding that he violated company policy by engaging in threatening behavior.

Tilkey’s lawsuit accused Allstate of violating state law by firing him for an arrest that did not result in a conviction.  Apparently the jury not only agreed with that theory, but was sufficiently outraged by Allstate’s misconduct that they awarded a huge amount of punitive damages.  Allstate says it will appeal.

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that a jury this week awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages against Allstate Insurance in an employment case involving some unusual facts.

According to the story, Michael Tilkey, a longtime Allstate employee, was arrested on domestic violence charges after an argument with his then-girlfriend.  Prosecutors dismissed he charges after Tilkey entered into a plea deal requiring him to attend anger-management classes. His ex-girlfriend, however, sent an email to Allstate accusing Tilkey of threatening her.  She demanded that the company investigate Tilkey’s conduct. Allstate fired him three months later, after concluding that he violated company policy by engaging in threatening behavior.

Tilkey’s lawsuit accused Allstate of violating state law by firing him for an arrest that did not result in a conviction.  Apparently the jury not only agreed with that theory, but was sufficiently outraged by Allstate’s misconduct that they awarded a huge amount of punitive damages.  Allstate says it will appeal.

A reader tipped me off to this verdict, which was handed down a few weeks ago in Orange County.  A jury awarded just under $10 million in compensatory damages, plus $13 million in punitive damages, against GEICO Insurance Co. 

Omar Daoud, a GEICO insured, was injured in an auto accident with a driver who had $100,000 in liability coverage.  Daoud demanded that GEICO pay the $400,000 underinsured motorist policy limits on his policy.  According to Daoud, GEICO unreasonably delayed in paying those benefits, which caused him to lose two homes to foreclosure.

GEICO says it plans to appeal, according to this story in the Orange County Register.