The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) issued this published opinion affirming a $100,000 punitive damages award. The opinion was originally unpublished, but the court ordered publication yesterday, in reponse to a publication request submitted by the Consumer Attorneys of California.

The defendant’s only challenge to the punitive damages award was that punitive damages are unavailable in breach of contract actions. The Court of Appeal rejecting that argument, citing previous cases that have allowed punitive damages for bad faith breach of an insurance contract.

The court did not address Civil Code section 3294, which provides that punitive damages are available only for “the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” That language suggests that punitive damages should not be available for tort claims (like insurance bad faith) that are based entirely on the breach of a contractual obligation. Although several Court of Appeal opinions have affirmed punitive damages awards in insurance bad faith actions, none of those opinions have reconciled that result with the language of the statute.

UPDATE: I didn’t notice this the first time around, but the publication order only applies to certain portions of the opinion. The punitive damages discussion remains unpublished.

The California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Seven) issued this unpublished opinion affirming a trial court order that wiped out a $205,000 punitive damages award.

The jury awarded no compensatory damages to the plaintiff, and then awarded $205,000 in punitive damages. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that a punitive damages award cannot stand without some award of compensatory damages.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Mother Cobb’s Chicken v. Fox (1937) 10 Cal.2d 203, which held that “actual damages must be found as a predicate for exemplary damages.” The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Mother Cobb’s Chicken has been undermined by subsequent Court of Appeal decisions. The court noted that most of the plaintiffs’ authorities predate two recent Supreme Court decisions – – Kizer v. County of San Mateo and Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. – – which reaffirmed the rule of Mother Cobb’s Chicken. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to justify the punitive damages award based on “presumed” compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs in this case are certainly not the first to attack the continuing validity of the rule in Mother Cobb’s Chicken. Because this is a recurring issue, the court probably should have published this opinion.

The California Court of Appeal (Sixth District) issued this unpublished opinion affirming a trial court’s decision not to award punitive damages after a bench trial.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal noted that, under California law, “even where the plaintiff prevails in a case where punitive damages are permissible, the plaintiff ‘is never entitled to them. The granting or withholding of the award of punitive damages is wholly within the control of the [the trier of fact]….’” (Citing Brewer v. Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles (1948) 32 Cal.2d 791, 801.)

The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division One) issued this unpublished opinion reducing a punitive damages award in an appeal from a default judgment. The court concluded that the record would not support a punitive damages award more than $3,600 – – six times the compensatory damages of $600. The court did not invoke the U. S. Supreme Court’s statement in State Farm v. Campbell that the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can exceed single digits in cases involving “unusually small” compensatory damages.