California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy

  • Tennessee appellate court vacates $28 million punitive damages award

    The Daily News of Memphis reports that the Tennessee Court of Appeals has vacated a $28 million punitive damages award based on allegedly negligent care provided by a nursing home.

    This case involved multiple defendants who got whacked for a collective award of $1.9 million in compensatory damages and $28 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability against one of the defendants, but found insufficient evidence to support liability as to the others.  The court then concluded that the punitive damages must be retried even as to the one defendant that was properly held liable, because the amount of the award was based partly on the conduct of the other defendants. 

  • North Carolina awards $450 million in punitive damages, but award is capped under state law

    Associated Press reports (via WLOS.com) that a North Carolina jury last week awarded $23.5 million in compensatory damages and $450 million punitive damages in a nuisance case against Smithfield Foods, which operates a major hog farming operation near the plaintiffs’ property.

    If that sounds familiar, it’s because we blogged about a very similar case a few months ago.

    The $450 million number will be reduced under North Carolina law, which caps punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages.  The plaintiffs in the prior case challenged the constitutionality of that statute, but lost that argument.

  • Tennessee appellate court vacates $28 million punitive damages award

    The Daily News of Memphis reports that the Tennessee Court of Appeals has vacated a $28 million punitive damages award based on allegedly negligent care provided by a nursing home.

    This case involved multiple defendants who got whacked for a collective award of $1.9 million in compensatory damages and $28 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability against one of the defendants, but found insufficient evidence to support liability as to the others.  The court then concluded that the punitive damages must be retried even as to the one defendant that was properly held liable, because the amount of the award was based partly on the conduct of the other defendants.

  • Proposal to enhance punitive damages for sex trafficking moving forward in California Legislature (AB 2105)

    I previously reported on this bill, which would authorize enhanced penalties against those who participate in sex trafficking and other related crimes involving minors. The Senate has approved the bill with minor amendments, and it has returned to the Assembly for approval of the amended version.  The bill appears likely to pass.

  • Proposal to enhance punitive damages for sex trafficking moving forward in California Legislature (AB 2105)

    I previously reported on this bill, which would authorize enhanced penalties against those who participate in sex trafficking and other related crimes involving minors. The Senate has approved the bill with minor amendments, and it has returned to the Assembly for approval of the amended version.  The bill appears likely to pass.

  • Court of Appeal affirms $1 million punitive damages award in fraud case (Melvin v. Harkey)

    In this unpublished opinion the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, rejects a defendant’s argument that a jury award of $1 million in punitive damages should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to prove malice, oppression, or fraud.  The court finds sufficient evidence in the record that the defendant, the owner of an investment firm, engaged in a Ponzi scheme and maliciously disregarded the rights of his investors.

    In the process, the Court of Appeal makes some unfortunate comments about the role of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in punitive damages cases, and how it impacts appellate review.

    As we have noted in the past, published opinions have repeatedly held that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies both on appeal and in the trial court, and requires appellate courts to decide whether a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s evidence met the clear and convincing standard.  (See, for example, this recent opinion and this one.)  This opinion, however, perpetuates the contrary (and outdated) view that the clear and convincing standard applies solely to the trier of fact, and does not play any role on appeal.

  • North Carolina jury awards $6.6 million in punitive damages against man who had an affair with a married woman

    The Washington Post reports here on a North Carolina verdict awarding $2.2 million in compensatory damages and $6.6 million in punitive damages for alienation of affection and “criminal conversation.”

    In essence, the plaintiff alleged that he had a happy marriage until the defendant came along and lured his wife into an affair.  The “conversation” in question is apparently an archaic way of referring to sexual intercourse. According to the story, North Carolina is one of only six states that still permit tort claims of this nature.

  • Court of Appeal affirms $1 million punitive damages award in fraud case (Melvin v. Harkey)

    In this unpublished opinion the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, rejects a defendant’s argument that a jury award of $1 million in punitive damages should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to prove malice, oppression, or fraud.  The court finds sufficient evidence in the record that the defendant, the owner of an investment firm, engaged in a Ponzi scheme and maliciously disregarded the rights of his investors.

    In the process, the Court of Appeal makes some unfortunate comments about the role of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in punitive damages cases, and how it impacts appellate review.

    As we have noted in the past, published opinions have repeatedly held that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies both on appeal and in the trial court, and requires appellate courts to decide whether a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s evidence met the clear and convincing standard.  (See, for example, this recent opinion and this one.)  This opinion, however, perpetuates the contrary (and outdated) view that the clear and convincing standard applies solely to the trier of fact, and does not play any role on appeal.

  • North Carolina jury awards $6.6 million in punitive damages against man who had an affair with a married woman

    The Washington Post reports here on a North Carolina verdict awarding $2.2 million in compensatory damages and $6.6 million in punitive damages for alienation of affection and “criminal conversation.”

    In essence, the plaintiff alleged that he had a happy marriage until the defendant came along and lured his wife into an affair.  The “conversation” in question is apparently an archaic way of referring to sexual intercourse. According to the story, North Carolina is one of only six states that still permit tort claims of this nature.

  • The mystery of the shrinking punitive damages (Jet Source v. Doherty)

    This unpublished opinion has a footnote that struck me as funny. 

    The appeal involves the renewal of a judgment that includes punitive damages.  (Under California law, a judgment expires after 10 years unless it is renewed.)  The original judgment included $26 million in punitive damages against multiple defendants, but three years later the superior court reduced the punitive damages to a total of $6.5 million.  According to the Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One): “There is no explanation in the record why the amounts of the punitive damages were modified.”

    The explanation may not be in the record, but it is in the California Appellate Reports.  The trial court reduced the punitive damages because the Court of Appeal ordered it to do so.  In 2007, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion holding that the original punitive damages award in this case was excessive and should be reduced to a total of $6.5 million.  Mystery solved.