California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy
  • Yet more from Prof. Markel on taxing and deducting punitive damages awards

    We’ve chronicled some of the academic debate concerning the ins and outs of tax treatment of punitive damages awards. One of the debaters, Professor Dan Markel, posted an update this week (“What will Congress do regarding the tax treatment of punitive damages?“), outlining more recent papers on the subject, authored by himself and others, including Professors Larry Zelenak and Paul Mogin. He remarks, “in an Escheresque-turn, we now invite comments on our comments on their comments on our paper.” Some readers of this blog just might want to take him up on the offer!

    For our last analysis of thoughts from Professor Markel, see “More from Professor Markel on Tax Policy and Punitive Damages.”

  • District Judge in air crash action analyzes choice of law rules specific to punitive damages; finds no-cap New York law trumps Virginia’s $350,000 cap

    Judge William Skretny, sitting in the Western District of New York, has undertaken a lengthy analysis of competing principles concerning the question of what jurisdiction’s law to apply in a mass tort case raising punitive damages issues. Noting that the choice-of-law analysis may result in application of different state law with respect to compensatory damages, the judge focused on the fact that punitive damages are meant to be “conduct regulating” rather than “loss allocating.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the “lex loci delicti” rule should be the default rule, such that the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders.

    The practical effect of this ruling is that families suing over the deaths of 50 people resulting from a 2009 Continental plane crash into a house near Buffalo, New York, will have the benefit of New York’s punitive damages law, which does not impose any cap. The defendant flight operator was based in Virginia at the time of the crash, and had argued that Virginia’s $350,000 cap should apply. The judge agreed that, in plane crash cases, the domicile of the plaintiffs is not determinitive, nor is the fortuitous location of the crash. Moreover, the judge said he “does not lightly dismiss Defendants’ arguments that Virginia law should apply because of the number of significant contacts relating to punitive damages that occurred there.” The judge nonetheless ruled that the allegedly wrongful conduct at issue largely occurred in New York rather than in Virginia:

    “Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are not limited to what occurred in Defendants’ boardroom. Although Plaintiffs allege that punitive damages are warranted because Defendants failed to implement adequate safety programs and negligently hired and trained their flight crews — allegations that reasonably implicate corporate decision-making and policies — they also allege that Defendants failed to adequately supervise their flight crews and negligently operated an aircraft in New York in an unsafe manner, resulting in the crash of Flight 3407. Essentially, Plaintiffs maintain that punitive damages are in order because Defendants recklessly operated Flight 3407 in New York with deficient, unfit pilots who lacked the fundamental knowledge and ability to safely operate the Q400 aircraft. New York therefore has a compelling interest in seeing its punitive damages laws applied.”

    The judge added that Virgnia’s interest in having its law applied was diminished because, since the time of the accident, the defendants had moved their center of operations out of Virginia.

  • Wisonsin Supreme Court affirms $5 million punitive damages award in jerky family dispute.

    As we’ve previously reported, a Wisconsin jury awarded $5 million in punitive damages to the son of Jay Link, the aptly named founder of a meat snacks company. The son proved a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on allegations that the father squeezed him out of the family’s beef jerky business.

    As recounted in several publications, including a write-up by the Courthouse News Service, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has now agreed with the intermediate appellate court that Mr. Link’s challenge to the award was procedurally defective because his new trial motion was filed two minutes after the normal 4:30 p.m. closing time for the clerk’s office. Although the clerk accepted the filing as timely, the high court held the clerk had no discretion to do so, and that the trial court therefore had no authority to enter its order reducing the damages to $736,000.

    As they say, “timing is everything.” The delay in filing comes out to a more than $2 million-per-minute mistake, assuming that other proceedings on remand (concerning the underlying fiduciary duty claims) don’t indirectly lead to some relief from the punitive damages award.

  • Are lower courts thumbing their noses at SCOTUS guidelines for reviewing large punitive damages awards?

    University of Iowa College of Law professor N. William Hines was intrigued by the creative approach that the Oregon Supreme Court followed in 2008 when reaffirming a 97-to-1 punitive award against Philip Morris after the United States Supreme Court decision in Philip Morris v. Williams. (See our original post on that development.) The latter decision had seemed at first blush to dictate a reversal and retrial due to instructional error, but the Oregon court found an end run around that result. Upon contemplating the procedural history of Williams, Professor Hines undertook a study (abstracted here) to see “whether lower courts could be counted upon to faithfully implement the Supreme Court’s new constitutional jurisprudence regarding punitive damages.” To that end, he “decided to collect and study all of the reported punitive damages cases decided by lower courts since the 2003 State Farm decision.”

    The results of the study are interesting, leading Professor Hines to conclude, among other things, that the more than 400 cases analyzed show “much wider diversity in the types of modern cases in which punitive damages are sought and awarded” than one might assume. The professor’s ultimate conclusion is that court review of those awards has generally reflected a high degree of faithfulness to the guidance from the Supreme Court (notwithstanding the Oregon court’s approach in Williams): “In case after case, the lower courts correctly invoked the new constitutional doctrine based on Due Process and dutifully proceeded to analyze the reasonableness and size of the punitive damages award before them by applying the three Guideposts.”

    For those tracking Due Process jurisprudence as applied to punitive damages awards, the full study, including the appendix charting objective data about the types of cases and ratios between compensatory and and punitive damages, is worth a read. The July 2011 paper is titled, “Marching to a Different Drummer? Are Lower Courts Faithfully Implementing the Evolving Due Process Guideposts to Catch and Correct Excessive Punitive Damages Awards?”

  • A (temporary) changing of the guard around here

    Starting tomorrow, I will be taking a six-week sabbatical in order to do some traveling and spend time with my family.  I probably won’t be doing much blogging my sabbatical, but my colleagues will be filling in for me, keeping an eye out for noteworthy developments in punitive damages law and litigation.  See you in September!

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

    I’ve been meaning to post about HBO’s “Hot Coffee” documentary ever since reading this Reuters interview with the filmmaker (“Hot Coffee” shows the other side of “frivolous lawsuits”).  I can’t comment on the film itself because I haven’t seen it yet, but I was struck by the overall theme of the article: the author felt compelled to make a film to tell “the other side” of civil litigation, because “[n]obody talks about frivolous defenses” and the other evils perpetrated by defense lawyers and their clients. 

    I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.  The author perceives that plaintiffs’ lawyers have been unfairly vilified and portrayed as bad guys to the American public.  From my perspective, the opposite seems true.  My perception is that nearly every depiction of civil litigation in the media and pop culture portrays plaintiffs’ lawyers as heroes, fighting for the little guys against evil corporations who will stop at nothing to make a buck.  I can think of quite a few films that glorify plaintiffs’ lawyers, such as Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, Philadelphia, Class Action.  And didn’t we just have another documentary film, Bananas, depicting plaintiffs’ lawyers fighting against evil corporations?  I can’t really think of any films that glorify civil defense lawyers.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not quitting my job to make a film about the virtues of defense lawyers.  I just don’t share the author’s views about how civil litigation is usually presented to the American public.   

  • Here we go again: Exxon Mobil ordered to pay $1 billion in punitive damages

    The Associated Press is reporting that a Maryland jury has awarded $1 billion in punitive damages and $495 million in compensatory damages against Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by 160 families and businesses affected by a gasoline leak at a gas station.  Exxon will undoubtedly file post-trial motions and, if necessary, an appeal.  If they can’t knock out the punitive damages entirely, there’s a good chance they’ll succeed in getting the ratio reduced to 1 to 1.  The Exxon Shipping decision won’t provide direct precedent, because the punitive damages in that case were reduced under federal maritime law.  But even without Exxon Shipping, Exxon will have a strong argument that any ratio in excess of 1 to 1 is excessive. 

    Whatever happens, the appellate process shouldn’t drag on for nearly as long as the Exxon Valdez case.  In that case the Ninth Circuit repeatedly remanded to the district court to re-evaluate the amount of punitive damages in light of the latest Supreme Court decisions.  By the time the case would make it up on appeal again, the Supreme Court would issue a new decision.  I don’t foresee another string of Supreme Court decisions on excessive punitive damages this time around; the Court as presently constituted has declined several opportunities to jump back into this area.   

  • Rex Heeseman op-ed discusses Behr v. Redmond

    Rex Heeseman, an L.A. County Superior Court judge who has written a series of op-eds for the Daily Journal on punitive damages and insurance law, has an op-ed in today’s Daily Journal (subscription required) discussing the Behr v. Redmond case.

    Judge Heeseman’s op-ed concludes with a discussion about appellate strategy for defendants facing the issues raised in Behr.  He suggests that when a defendant appeals from a large compensatory damages award and a relatively smaller punitive damages award, and the defendant challenges the amount of the compensatory damages award, the defendant should also argue that the punitive damages are excessive when compared to the compensatory award after the expected reduction on appeal (assuming the defendant can predict how much the reduction will be).  He also suggests that defense counsel should not ask for a retrial of the punitive damages award, but should ask the appellate court to simply reduce the amount of punitive damages without a remand.  He doesn’t get into the split of authority that was the subject of the petition for review, but he observes that the trend of recent cases is to resolve the final amount of punitive damages at the appellate level without further trial proceedings.

    Related posts:

    Two out of three ain’t bad: Supreme Court denies review in Behr v. Richmond, despite my prediction that they’d take the case

    Petition for review asks Cal. Supreme Court to resolve split in authority regarding the proper treatment of a punitive damages award after reduction of compensatories

    Behr v. Redmond: Court of Appeal publishes previously unpublished opinion, creates split of authority

    Behr v. Redmond: $2.8M punitive award affirmed, despite reduction of compensatory damages from $4M to $1.6M

  • Gunderson v. Wall: defendant who paid punitive damages not entitled to interest after award reversed on appeal

    In 2009, the defendant in this case persuaded the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) to reverse a $800,000 punitive damages award.  (We described the reversal in a prior post.)  While the appeal was pending, however, the plaintiff had forced the defendant to pay the $800,000.  Apparently the defendant was unable to post an appeal bond or otherwise obtain a stay of enforcement pending appeal.

    After the appeal, the defendant sought restitution of its $800,000, with interest.  Ordinarily, when a defendant is forced to pay a money judgment that is reversed on appeal, the defendant is entitled to get the money back with interest.  But the trial court here ruled that the defendant was not entitled to interest because it engaged in “inequitable” conduct by resisting the plaintiff’s enforcement efforts; specifically, the defendant avoided attempts to serve writs of execution and ignored a subsequent court order.

    The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) affirmed in this published opinion, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion when it weighed the equities and declined to award interest.  The Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff had expended $100,000 in attorney’s fees to collect the judgment, and concluded that letting the plaintiff keep the interest on the $800,000 would properly return the plaintiff to the position he would have been in if he hadn’t enforced the judgment.  The defendant, however, ends up in a worse position, losing out on the interest on the $800,000 that rightfully belonged to the defendant all along. 

    Related posts:

    Gunderson v. Wall: inconsistencies in defendant’s testimony are not alone sufficient to support punitive damages

  • Two out of three ain’t bad: Supreme Court denies review in Behr v. Richmond, despite my prediction that they’d take the case

    Time for me to eat some crow.  I predicted the California Supreme Court would grant review in Behr v. Redmond, because the petition for review raised a clear split in the lower courts on a frequently recurring issue.  I was two for two on my previous predictions, but now I’m two for three.  The petition for review in Behr was denied today, according to the court’s on-line docket.  Not a single justice voted for review.  I’m at a loss to explain why the Supreme Court would not want to resolve the split at issue here, but maybe they’re just waiting for a better vehicle than the “herpes case.”

    Related posts:

    Petition for review asks Cal. Supreme Court to resolve split in authority regarding the proper treatment of a punitive damages award after reduction of compensatories

    Behr v. Redmond: Court of Appeal publishes previously unpublished opinion, creates split of authority
     
    Behr v. Redmond: $2.8M punitive award affirmed, despite reduction of compensatory damages from $4M to $1.6M