Law 360 predicts that a $148 million punitive damages award, given to the widow of a smoker, won’t survive appellate review.  That’s a solid prediction, in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s November 2021 decision in Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds.  

Sheffield interpreted a 1999 Florida law that prohibits courts from imposing punitive damages on a defendant who has already been punished for the same conduct.  The Supreme Court held that the law barred punitive damages in a case brought by the wife of a smoker who was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1994 and died in 2007.  The court held that the plaintiff’s wrongful death claim did not accrue until the smoker’s death, and therefore the 1999 statute applied, prohibiting punitive damages.

The $148 million award at issue in the Law360 story seems destined for reversal on the same grounds.

Reuters reports that a jury in federal court in Florida has awarded $30 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages against 3M Co., in a lawsuit alleging that two Army veterans suffered hearing damages as a result of 3M’s defective combat earplugs.

The plaintiffs in this case are among nearly 300,000 veterans who have sued 3M over the earplugs.  The verdict in this case is the largest so far, topping the previous record by $22.5 million.

We previously reported on Tesla’s posttrial motions seeking to overturn a $130 million punitive damages award in a hostile work environment case.  It appears that the judge is skeptical of Tesla’s bid for a new trial, but may agree that the damages are excessive, according to this Law360 story.

Mitchell Morris of Butler Snow published this piece in Law360, discussing recent decisions in Delaware and Colorado that emphasize the importance of courts ensuring that punitive damages are not imposed without fair notice.

In 2019 we reported on the $8 million punitive damages award against entrepreneur Alki David in this case, one of several lawsuits against him that resulted in punitive damages.

The California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) affirmed the award in an unpublished opinion.  David argued that the Court of Appeal should reverse the punitive damages because the plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence of David’s financial condition.  The court ruled that David forfeited that argument by disobeying the trial court’s order to appear as a witness in the punitive damages phase of trial.

The court further ruled that, forfeiture aside, the evidence was sufficient to support the award.  The plaintiff did not present evidence of David’s net worth, and instead presented evidence only of his income (which was negative) and certain assets.  Other courts have held that such evidence is insufficient, and that the plaintiff must present evidence of the complete financial picture, including the defendant’s expenses and liabilities.  But the court here concluded that the partial evidence was good enough, because it showed that David was a wealthy man who could afford to pay a large sum of punitive damages.  Although this analysis conflicts with the holdings of other cases, the chances of Supreme Court review seem low, due to the forfeiture problem and the fact that the opinion is unpublished.

Law 360 reports that a jury in Los Angeles County superior court has awarded $5.4 million in compensatory damages and $155 million in punitive damages to the former head of Farmers Insurance’s in-house legal services department.  He sued the company for age discrimination, disability determination, and retaliation.  The jury rejected his discrimination claims, but found in his favor on retaliation. He alleged that he was fired in retaliation for his role as a witness or potential witness in a sex bias suit.  The 30-to-1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages seems unlikely to withstand posttrial and appellate scrutiny.

USA today reports that a Nevada state court jury has awarded $2.65 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages to three companies that provide emergency healthcare services.   The plaintiff companies sued United Healthcare for allegedly underpaying out-of-network emergency medical providers.  This award is not likely to survive post-trial and appellate review, given the the punitive-to-compensatory ratio in excess of 20-to-1.

Law 360 and Bloomberg Law are reporting on a Florida Supreme Court decision that prohibits a smoker’s family from recovering punitive damages from RJ Reynolds.

Florida passed a law in 1999 that prevents courts from imposing punitive damages on a defendant who has already been subjected to punitive damages for the same conduct.  The Supreme Court addressed whether that law applied to a situation in which a smoker filed a lawsuit before 1999, and then his heirs filed a new lawsuit for wrongful death after 1999.  The court ruled that wrongful death actions are distinct from personal injury actions, and the wrongful death action did not arise until the smoker died in 2007, was was therefore governed by the 1999 law.

Bloomberg legal reports on Tesla’s posttrial motions in the Northern District of California challenging a $137 million verdict, including a $130 million in punitive damages, in an employment case involving allegations of a hostile work environment.  The plaintiff, a Black man who worked in Tesla’s factory in 2015-2016, claims Tesla employees used racial slurs in his presence and Tesla did not do enough to stop it.  Given the huge disparity between the punitive damages and the compensatory award, it seems almost certain that the punitive damages will be reduced, either through posttrial motions or appeal.