2012 has been a relatively quiet year for blockbuster punitive damages awards in California.  But that trend could change in January 2013 according to this report in the San Mateo County Times.  Judge Steven Dylina of the San Mateo County Superior Court has tentatively denied PG&E’s request to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a lawsuit arising out of the 2010 San Bruno explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.  If Dylina sticks to his tentative ruling, a jury could be asked to award punitive damages in a case involving 350 plaintiffs and a very large amount of compensatory damages.

The Oregonian reports that United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak has denied a defendant’s request to apply Iraqi law to a claim for punitive damages based on conduct that occurred in Iraq. 

The plaintiffs are Oregon National Guard soldiers who accuse defense contractor KBR, Inc. of knowingly exposing them to hexavelent chromium (which you may remember from such films as Erin Brockovich).  KPR argued that Iraqi law should apply because the alleged misconduct took place in Iraq, not Oregon where the case is pending. Iraqi law, like the law of most countries in the world, prohibits punitive damages.   

The Globe and Mail of Toronto reports that U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York has awarded $6 billion in punitive damages against Iran, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, to punish the defendants for their involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

According to the story, the court blamed Iran partly because the hijackers passed through Iran on their way to the U.S.  I’m not quite sure how that supports liability against Iran, but it hardly matters.  As the reporter observed, the award is largely symbolic and “unlikely to be recovered.” It’s no more collectible than any of the other gigantic punitive damages awards that the federal courts have issued against Iran in recent years.

Related posts:

Federal judge piles on punitive damages against Iran and Sudan: $1.67B and $236M

Federal Judge Awards $300 Million In Punitive Damages Against Iran

Federal judge awards $61.3 million in punitive damages against Iran

$25 Million in Punitive Damages Against Cuba

Miami Judge Awards $393 Million in Punitive Damages Against Cuba

The Associated Press is reporting that, this afternoon, a Los Angeles jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages to casino mogul Steve Wynn in his lawsuit against “Girls Gone Wild” founder Joe Francis.  That’s on top of the $20 million the jury awarded yesterday for compensatory damages.  The jury found that Francis defamed Wynn by falsely stating that Wynn had threatened to kill him.

The AP story quotes Francis’ attorney as saying that the jury should not have awarded punitive damages because Wynn failed to produce any evidence of Francis’ financial condition.  As readers of this blog know, California appellate courts often reverse punitive damages awards on that basis.  But that article also states that “Francis did not provide financial records to Wynn’s attorney.”  That suggests Wynn may be arguing that Francis waived any right to complain about the lack of financial condition evidence because Francis failed to comply with a court order to produce his financial records.  I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot more about this one.

The American Bar Association is working on its annual list of the top 100 legal blogs, and invites readers to nominate their favorite blogs by filling out a short online form.  If any of our readers think Cal Punitives should be on that list, we’d love to be nominated.  And please consider nominating our sister blog, At the Lectern, as well.   

According to the NY Times, a Santa Monica jury has awarded $440,000 in punitive damages against a hotel and its owner for violations of California’s civil rights laws.  The jury had previously awarded $1.2 million in compensatory damages, as reported by the LA Times. 

The plaintiffs are 18 individuals who belonged to a group called the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces.  They were holding a poolside event at the Hotel Shangri-La in 2010 when, according to their lawsuit, the owner of the hotel found out the nature of the event and ordered them to remove their literature and banners and get out of the pool.  The jury found the hotel liable for violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The hotel’s chief business development officer (who is Jewish) says the hotel will appeal.

Hat tip: Prof. François-Xavier Licari.

Last year we reported on a $55 million punitive damages award against accounting firm BDO Seidman in Florida State Court.  That was one of the biggest punitive awards of 2011, although it didn’t make our top five.

Last week a judge in New York ruled that the $55 million award is not covered by insurance.  (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’S v BDO Seidman LLP, 2012 NY Slip Op 51425(U).)  The ruling confirms that, despite the views of some commentators, defendants should not expect coverage for punitive damages awards.

We don’t see many cases involving punitive damages in medical malpractice cases, but the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a jury there has awarded $500,000 in punitive damages against a doctor who allegedly mismanaged the plaintiff’s treatment following knee surgery.  The jury also awarded $7 million in punitive damages against Breg Inc., the maker of a medical device (the Polar Care 500) that allegedly gave the plaintiff frostbite.  The compensatory damages award is $5.2 million. (Engler v. Chao, SDSC no. GIC870982.)

The article describes accusations of negligence against the doctor, but does not explain the plaintiffs’ theory for recovering punitive damages – there’s no discussion of how the plaintiff proved the defendants acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.   

The case seems to be getting more press than the usual civil lawsuit because the doctor involved happens to be the team physician for the San Diego Chargers.  As the story notes, the California Medical Board is seeking to revoke his license based on three alleged incidents of negligent care in unrelated cases.

Last year we blogged about the documentary “Hot Coffee,” which focuses on Liebeck v. McDonald’s and a few other cases to illustrate the evils of tort reform.  As noted in our prior post, the film’s director Susan Saladoff said she made the film as an antidote to what she perceives as a pro-defendant bias in the mainstream media’s treatment of tort reform.

In this video provided by Widener University School of Law, you can view a debate between Ms. Saladoff and Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association.  The video has something for folks on both sides of the issue.  If you’re a fan of the movie, you’ll enjoy seeing Ms. Saladoff passionately explain why everyone should see this film, because it opens people’s eyes to the corporate takeover of the American justice system.  If you’re not a fan of the movie, you’ll enjoy seeing Mr. Schwartz identify all the parts of the film he believes are false or misleading.

Warning, this video was recorded via Skype and its a little garbled in places.  There are some moments when students are asking questions of Ms. Saladoff and Mr. Schwartz, but the questions are inaudible.  And the video begins in the middle of Ms. Saladoff’s comments.  Despite these technical glitches, I found the video quite interesting.

Hat tip: TortsProf Blog

Related posts:

“Hot Coffee” documentary takes aim at media depictions of civil litigation

Judge Rex Hesseman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court has an op-ed in the Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal entitled “‘Finances’ and punitive damages.”  (Subscription required.)  Judge Heeseman, who writes regularly on punitive damages and insurance law, focuses this time on Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor.  Here’s his conclusion about the potential effects of the Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm a $4.5 million punitive damages award based on expert opinion that the defendant could pay such an award, notwithstanding its negative net worth:

It can be asserted that focusing upon finances is a sort of an “end run” around the aforementioned “guidelines” of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Furthermore, the emphasis by Bullock III and ArvinMeritor on the “specific facts of each case” (admittedly echoing comments in Campbell) may bring flexibility, but also uncertainty.  . . .  And, for the “punitive damages phase” in some lawsuits, is it now advisable (required?) to have your “expert witness” ready to testify about “net worth,” “financial condition” and/or “ability to pay”?  Will there be a “dueling of experts” in that context, similar to that in some other litigation (e.g. standard of care in medical malpractice)?

We hope the California Supreme Court will provide some guidance on these questions in the furture, but as we noted in our most recent post about Bankhead, the California Supreme Court declined to wade into this area of the law in the context of that case.

Related posts:

California Supreme Court denies review in Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor

Defendant files petition for review in Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor

Published opinion affirms $4.5M punitive damages award in asbestos case (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor)