Punitive Damages
 Availability of Judicial Review of Compensatory Damages Awards
Daniel Measurement Services, Inc. v. Eagle Research Corp.
No. 07-384
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court declined to consider whether the Due Process Clause requires some minimal judicial review of a compensatory damages award. In this case, the trial court conceded the lack of facts supporting the damages award but indicated that it would not grant summary judgment or judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of course. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals declined review. In its brief, NCLC argued that this lack of judicial review posed an unacceptable risk that the defendant would be deprived of its property without due process of law.
Amicus brief in support of Cert. filed 10/22/07. Decision 11/26/07.
 View brief
Constitutionality of Making Punitive Damages Finding before Liability Determination
Chemtall, Inc. v. Madden, et al.
No. 33380
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals declined to review and vacate the trial court’s plan to have the jury determine the punitive damages multiplier before determining the amount of non-punitive recovery. In this case, the plaintiffs sought medical monitoring for exposure to chemicals during work at a coal preparation plant. NCLC argued that the trial court’s plan turned the State Farm v. Campbell decision on its head because a jury could not properly decide—consistent with Campbell’s one to one ratio requirement where the non-punitive recovery is large—the level of punitive damages without first knowing the amount of non-punitive recovery.
Amicus brief filed 8/13/07. Decision 11/15/07.
View brief
 Excessive Punitive Damages in the Admiralty Context
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
No. 07-219
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to hold that the Clean Water Act displaces federal common law remedies, including imposition of punitive damages, and to make clear, in the alternative, that the federal common law provides judicial standards for limiting excessive punitive damages. Arising from the Exxon Valdez shipping accident in 1989, this case presents an opportunity for the Court to issue clear guidance to lower courts as to excessive punitive damages awards in the maritime context. Its guidance should also be helpful to courts grappling with excessive punitive damages awards in other contexts.
Amicus brief filed 9/20/07. Cert. granted 10/29/07. Amicus brief on the merits filed 12/21/07. Oral argument to be held 2/27/08.
View brief
 Punitive Damages Liability for Business Disputes under Texas Law
Avco Corp., et al. v. Interstate Southwest, Ltd.
No. 14-05-00860a
Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals
Because it found no actual damages, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas vacated the $86 million punitive damages award arising from the failure of a mechanical component designed by the defendant but produced by the plaintiff. In its brief, NCLC argued that Texas law does not permit punitive damages awards in basic business litigation, unless truly reprehensible conduct is proven. Canvassing Texas law on punitive damages, NCLC explained that neither the governing statute nor Texas' large body of punitive damages case law permitted such a result and that punitive damages awards should only be employed to punish truly reprehensible conduct.
Amicus brief filed 10/16/06. Decision 11/1/07.
View brief
Excessive Punitive Damages in the Admiralty Context
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
No. 07-219
Supreme Court of the United States
As urged by NCLC, the Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Clean Water Act displaces federal common law remedies and whether the federal common law provides judicial standards for limiting excessive punitive damages. Arising from the Exxon Valdez shipping accident in 1989, this case presents an opportunity for the Court to issue clear guidance to lower courts as to excessive punitive damages awards in the maritime context. Its guidance should also be helpful to courts grappling with excessive punitive damages awards in other contexts.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 9/20/07. Cert. granted 10/29/07.
View brief
Punitive Damages and Compliance with Federal Standards
Ford Motor Co. v. Buell-Wilson
No. D045154
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
In its brief filed on remand to the California Court of Appeal, NCLC argued that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris v. Williams requires a new trial in this case where the jury was not properly instructed to avoid punishing the defendant for harm directed at non-parties. In a prior series of briefs, NCLC opposed the imposition of any punitive damages liability where the relevant federal agency had approved the allegedly defective design.
Amicus brief before California Court of Appeal filed 1/3/06. California Court of Appeal Decision 7/19/06. Amicus letter before California Supreme Court filed 9/26/06. Decision 11/2/06. Amicus in support of Cert. filed 4/4/07. United States Supreme Court Decision 5/14/07. Amicus brief before California Court of Appeal filed 9/28/07.
View brief
Excessive Punitive Damages
Continental Carbon Co., et al. v. Action Marine, Inc., et al.
No. 07-257
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to grant review to consider whether the 17.5 million dollar punitive damages award in this case violates the standards articulated in State Farm v. Campbell. In this case, the Eleventh Circuit failed to heed the Supreme Court's guidance that a punitive damages award should be limited where there is a large compensatory damages award. In addition, the court of appeals did not compare defendant's conduct to the conduct of other defendants in punitive damages cases. In its brief, NCLC noted its continuing concern about the failure of lower courts to faithfully apply the relevant constitutional guideposts.
Amicus brief in support of Cert. filed 9/26/07.
View brief
Punitive Damages and Harm to Non Parties
Bullock v. Philip Morris USA
Nos. B164398 & B169083
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
After having successfully convinced the California Supreme Court to remand this case for reconsideration in light of Philip Morris v. Williams, NCLC urged the California Court of Appeal to vacate the punitive damages award and remand to the trial court for a new trial on punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court made clear in Williams that trial courts must, upon request, guard against the risk of jury confusion when evidence related to the harm inflicted on non-parties is introduced. The trial court did not accede to the defendant's request and a new trial is therefore warranted.
Amicus brief filed 6/28/06. California Supreme Court decision 8/02/06. Amicus brief filed 9/24/07.
View brief
Punitive Damages and Compliance with Federal Standards
Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
No. M2005-01768-SC-R11-CV
Supreme Court of Tennessee
NCLC urged the Tennessee Supreme Court to affirm the intermediate appellate court's determination that punitive damages were not available where the defendant complied with relevant governmental standards. In its brief, NCLC argued that DaimlerChrysler complied with all relevant federal safety standards and therefore could not have exhibited the requisite wantonness which would support the award of punitive damages. NCLC made clear that its argument did not address liability for compensatory damages but rather the imposition of punitive damages where the relevant federal agency has blessed the design.
Amicus brief filed 9/5/07.
View brief
Constitutionality of Making Punitive Damages Finding before Liability Determination
Chemtall, Inc. v. Madden, et al.
No. 33380
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
NCLC urged the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to review and vacate the trial court's plan to have the jury determine the punitive damages multiplier before determining the amount of non-punitive recovery. In this case, the plaintiffs have sought medical monitoring for exposure to chemicals during work at a coal preparation plant. In its brief, NCLC argued that the trial court's plan turned the State Farm v. Campbell decision on its head because a jury could not properly decide—consistent with Campbell's one to one ratio requirement where the non-punitive recovery is large—the level of punitive damages without first knowing the amount of non-punitive recovery.
Amicus brief filed 8/13/07.
View brief
Unpublished California Punitive Damages Opinion
Walker v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
No. B188427
California Court of Appeal, Second District
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, published portions of its decision in this case upon NCLC's request. In its letter brief, NCLC urged the court to publish the decision because of the clear guidance it provides lower courts regarding application of the three guideposts articulated by the Supreme Court in State Farm v. Campbell for evaluating whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. In particular, NCLC noted that the appellate court properly limited punitive damages to a 1:1 ratio where compensatory damages were substantial.
Amicus letter filed 7/10/07. Decision 7/26/07.
View brief
Jury Instructions in Punitive Damages Cases
White v. Ford
No. 05-15655
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Ninth Circuit agreed with NCLC and reversed and remanded for a new trial a $52 million punitive damages jury award in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris v. Williams. In its brief, NCLC argued that the judge did not give adequate guidance to the jury as to the constitutional guideposts for determining the correct award, thereby permitting the jury to punish the defendant for conduct directed at non-parties.
Amicus brief filed 10/12/05. Decision 8/30/07.
View brief
Punitive Damages and Compliance with Federal Standards
Ford v. Buell-Wilson
No. 06-1068
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to review a punitive damages decision in which an initial $246 million jury award was reduced to $75 million by the trial court. In its brief, NCLC opposed the imposition of punitive damages liability where the relevant federal agency had approved the design of the faulted vehicle. NCLC argued that Ford complied with all relevant federal safety standards and therefore could not have exhibited the required reprehensible conduct which normally would support the award of punitive damages.
Amicus brief before California Court of Appeals filed 1/3/06. California Court of Appeals Decision 7/19/06. Amicus Letter before California Supreme Court filed 9/26/06. Decision 11/2/06. Amicus in support of cert. filed 4/4/07. Decision 5/14/07.
 View brief
..........................................................................................................................
Guidance to Lower Courts as to Excessive Punitive Damages Awards
Jet Source Charter, Inc. v. Doherty
No. D044779
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
Via letter, NCLC urged the California intermediate appellate court to publish its recent decision applying the principles articulated in State Farm v. Campbell to a case involving a fraudulent commercial transaction. Unlike the current practice in federal courts, litigants may not cite to unpublished opinions in California courts. NCLC believes that this opinion, if published, would offer useful guidance to lower courts as to the significance of State Farm's instruction that punitive damages should be limited in cases involving economic injury and significant compensatory damages.
Request to Publish filed 2/15/07. Decision 2/28/07.
View letter
..........................................................................................................................
Proper Procedure for Punitive Damages Trial on Remand
Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Gunderson Commonwealth of Kentucky Supreme Court
No. 2006-SC-000179
Kentucky Supreme Court
NCLC urged the Kentucky Supreme Court to clarify that when an appellate court concludes that a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive, it must remand for trial on both the need for, and amount of, punitive damages. In this case, the appellate court properly determined that plaintiffs could not seek punitive damages for defendant's conduct directed at third parties not before the court. However, the appellate court remanded the case for determination of the proper amount of punitive damages instead of permitting the jury to revisit the issue of punitive damages tabula rasa. In its brief, NCLC argues that the remand jury must reconsider the need for punitive damages or otherwise the same constitutional issues which plagued the initial jury's punitive damages verdict may be left undisturbed.
Amicus brief filed 12/21/06. Oral argument held 10/26/07.
View brief
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages and Compliance with Federal Standards
Buell-Wilson v. Ford
No. S146150
California Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court declined to review a punitive damages decision in which an initial $246 million jury award was reduced to $75 million by the trial court. In its brief, NCLC opposed the imposition of punitive damages liability where the relevant federal agency had approved the design of the faulted vehicle. NCLC argued that Ford complied with all relevant federal safety standards and therefore could not have exhibited the required reprehensible conduct which normally would support the award of punitive damages.
Amicus brief before California Court of Appeals filed 1/3/06. California Court of Appeals Decision 7/19/06. Amicus Letter before California Supreme Court filed 9/26/06. Decision 11/2/06.
View brief View decision
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages Liability for Business Disputes under Texas Law
Avco Corp., et al. v. Interstate Southwest, Ltd.
No. 14-05-00860a
Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals
NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the Fourteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas to overturn a lower court's ruling which upheld an $86 million punitive damages award, over the failure of a mechanical component designed by the defendant but produced by the plaintiff. In its brief, NCLC argues that Texas law does not permit punitive damages awards in basic business litigation, unless truly reprehensible conduct is proven. Canvassing Texas law on punitive damages, NCLC explained that neither the governing statute nor Texas' large body of punitive damages case law permitted such a result and that punitive damages awards should only be employed to punish truly reprehensible conduct.
Amicus brief filed 10/16/06.
View brief
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages and Compliance with Federal Standards
Buell-Wilson v. Ford
No. S146150
California Supreme Court
Urging the California Supreme Court to grant review and vacate the $75 million punitive damages award, NCLC argues that Ford complied with all relevant federal safety standards and therefore could not have exhibited the requisite wantonness which would support the award of punitive damages. In this case, the jury initially awarded $246 million in punitive damages which the trial court reduced. In its brief, NCLC made clear that it did not oppose liability but rather the imposition of punitive damages where the relevant federal agency has blessed the design.
Amicus brief before California Court of Appeals filed 1/03/06. California Court of Appeals Decision 7/19/06. Amicus Letter before California Supreme Court filed 9/26/06.
View brief View amicus letter
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages and Harm to Non-Parties
Philip Morris USA v. WilliamsNo. 05-1256 Supreme Court of the United States NCLC filed its amicus brief on the merits in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the first punitive damages case to be heard by the court since its 2003 landmark decision in State Farm v. Campbell. As urged by NCLC, the Supreme Court granted review of an Oregon Supreme Court decision to clarify whether juries may impose punitive damages for conduct that occurred to others not before the court. The court also agreed to consider whether extraordinary reprehensibility of the alleged conduct could nullify the single digit ratio limitation provided in State Farm. In this case, the state Supreme Court upheld a massive punitive damages award of $79 million against Philip Morris for "harm[ing] a much broader group of Oregonians" than the individual plaintiff who brought the suit. In its brief, NCLC argues the state court, by basing a punitive damages award on harm to non-parties, denied Philip Morris its due process rights to defend hypothetical claims against itself. NCLC also argues that punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to the compensatory damages awarded, and that the jury should use a ratio guidepost to calculate any extra damages. Amicus filed 5/1/06. Cert. granted 6/05/06. Amicus brief filed 7/28/06. Oral Argument to be held 10/31/06. Decision 2/20/07.
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages and Reprehensible ConductBullock v. Philip Morris USA
No. S143850 California Supreme Court In its brief, NCLC recommended that the California Supreme Court grant review of the lower court's excessive punitive damages award, and hold the case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris v. Williams. Both cases concern whether juries may award punitive damages based on conduct directed at non-parties and whether reprehensible conduct abrogates the single-digit ratio framework established by the Supreme Court in State Farm v. Campbell.
Amicus brief filed 6/28/06. View brief..........................................................................................................................
Availability of Punitive Damages under Georgia Statutory Cap
Action Marine, Inc. et al. v. Continental Carbon, Inc., et al.
Nos. 06-11311-DD, 06-11312-DD
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Rejecting NCLC's arguments, the Eleventh Circuit declined to vacate the $17.5 million punitive damages award. In its brief, NCLC explained that Georgia has enacted a clear limitation on awards of punitive damages where the defendant did not act with specific intent to harm the plaintiff. In such cases, the Georgia legislature has codified a $250,000 cap and the jury's award clearly exceeded that limit. Relying on constitutional principles of fair notice and lenity, NCLC argued that abrogating such a limit impinges on the business' right to due process.
Amicus brief filed 6/12/06. Decision 3/21/07. View brief
..........................................................................................................................
Punitive Damages and Harm to Non-Parties
Philip Morris USA v. Williams
No. 05-1256
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC urges the Supreme Court to grant review an Oregon Supreme Court decision to clarify that juries may not impose punitive damages for conduct that occurred to others not before the court. In the case below, the state supreme court upheld a massive punitive damages award against Philip Morris for "harm[ing] a much broader group of Oregonians" than the individual plaintiff who brought the suit. NCLC argues that punishing a defendant for harm to non-parties violates a defendant's due process rights to defend claims against it and directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's admonition in State Farm v. Campbell that "[d]ue process does not permit courts, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties' hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis."
Amicus brief in support of Certiorari filed 5/1/06.
...........................................................................................................................
Excessive Punitive Damages and Jury Instructions
Morgan Stanley v. Coleman Holdings
No. 4D05-2606
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals
Urging the intermediate appellate court to vacate the judgment below, NCLC explained that the $850 million punitive damages award bore no relation to the purposes served by punitive damages and therefore violated due process. In addition, NCLC challenged the instructions given to the jury as failing to adequately guide the jury on the proper method for awarding punitive damages. In doing so, NCLC has continued its project of ensuring that judges and juries across the country have a clear understanding of the standard articulated in the Supreme Court's decision in State Farm v. Campbell.
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed 12/14/05. Motion for leave to file amicus brief denied 1/10/06.
View brief
......................................................................................................................................
New Trials Based on Excessiveness of Punitive Damages
Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc.
No. S133884
United States Supreme Court
NCLC urges the Supreme Court to review a punitive damages award which was so excessive as to support a motion for new trial in addition to any motion for reduction in the award itself. In its brief, NCLC explained that courts around the country had not faithfully followed the approach outlined in State Farm v. Campbell and that the Court should therefore make clear that courts needed to strictly apply that approach.
Amicus letter brief in support of petition for review filed 7/7/05. Review denied 8/10/2005. Amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari filed 12/14/05.
...........................................................................................................................
Intent Requirement under Arizona Law in Order to Impose Punitive Damages Liability
Douglas v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
No. 1 CA-CV 04-0554
Court of Appeals of the State of Arizona, Division One
Agreeing with NCLC, the Court of Appeals of the State of Arizona, Division One, vacated the $50 million dollar punitive damages award rendered by a jury considering whether a DaimlerChrysler seatback design was defective. In its brief, NCLC pointed to Arizona law which required that the defendant act with an evil mind when engaging in the wanton or reckless conduct supporting the award of punitive damages. Finding insufficient evidence of such an evil mind, the court vacated the punitive damages award.
Amicus brief in support of Defendants/Appellant filed 12/23/04. Motion to file amicus brief granted 1/27/05. Decision 10/13/05.
 View brief
...............................................................................................................................
Scope of Appellate Review of Punitive Damages Awards in State Courts
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Jean A. Hollock
No. 152 MAL 2004
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider whether conduct of a party during a bad faith insurance action is admissible to support a finding of punitive damages and what scope of review should an appellate court apply when reviewing a punitive damages award. NCLC argues that that alleged misconduct during the litigation itself should not support a bad faith insurance claim for punitive damages and that Pennsylvania should employ the searching review of punitive damages awards required by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group.
Amicus brief filed on 9/19/05. Decision 8/22/06.
View brief View decision
......................................................................................................................................
New Trials Based on Excessiveness of Punitive Damages
Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc.
No. S133884
Supreme Court of California
The California Supreme Court declined to grant review of a punitive damages award which,
NCLC contended, was so excessive as to support a motion for new trial in addition to any
motion for reduction in the award itself. In its brief, NCLC explained that verdicts
rendered by juries so impassioned as to award punitive damages far beyond the
constitutional maximum should be entitled to minimal respect.
Amicus Letter brief in support of petition for review filed 7/7/05. Review denied 8/10/05.
View brief
...........................................................................................................................
Excessive Statutory Damages
Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc.
Nos. 04-1433 & 04-1434
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
NCLC urged reversal of a district court decision that held that there are no due process limitations on the amount of damage awards that a jury can award under laws with statutory caps, such as the Copyright Act at issue in this case. NCLC argued that the $20 million verdict awarded in this case should have been reviewed for unconstitutional excessiveness in the same manner as punitive damages, and that Legg Mason's financial condition should not have been considered in setting the amount of damages.
Amicus brief filed 7/12/04. Oral argument held 3/16/05. Case settled 6/17/05.
View brief
Punitive Damages Award Disguised as Emotional Distress
Ceimo v. General American Life Insurance Company, et al.
Nos. 03-16882 and 03-16930
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
NCLC urges the Ninth Circuit to strike down a $5.47 million emotional distress award that a jury approved in conjunction with a bad-faith insurance claim that the parties stipulated was worth $1.2 million. NCLC argues that this record-setting emotional distress award was actually a punitive damages award disguised as emotional distress, presented grave future risks if allowed to remain as precedent in the field of bad faith torts and other areas, and was wholly unsupported by the evidence.
Amicus brief filed on behalf of Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees 3/11/04. Oral argument held 6/13/05.
View brief
Excessive Punitive Damages in Arbitration Awards
EMC Mortgage Corporation v. Stark
No. 04-1056
U. S. Supreme Court
NCLC argues that courts must ensure that any award of punitive damages by an arbitrator comports with due process, especially an award like this in which a court of appeals upheld a $6 million punitive award that is 3,000 times the plaintiff's compensatory damages.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 3/7/05.
View brief
Excessive Punitive Damages
Williams v. Philip Morris Incorporated, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.
SC No. S51085
Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
NCLC argues that the state court of appeal's decision affirming a punitive damages ratio of 152:1 is inconsistent with State Farm v. Campbell, and can be based neither on allegations that the defendant's misconduct cause "potential injury" to non-parties nor on the wealth of the defendant.
Amicus brief in support of petition for review filed 2/1/05.
View brief
Excessive Punitive Damages
Anderson, et al. v. General Motors Corporation
No. B135147
California Appellate Court - Second Appellate District
NCLC argued that the staggering amounts of damages awarded in this case - including emotional distress awards exceeding $100 million and a punitive damages award of $4.8 billion - was tainted by passion and prejudice and deprives the company of its right to a fair trial.
Application to file amicus brief filed 3/30/01. Application to file amicus brief granted 4/11/01. Request for dismissal filed 7/21/03. Dismissal order filed 7/23/03.
Punitive Damages Awards in Class Actions
In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation
No. 2001-C-2485
Supreme Court of Louisiana
NCLC supported CSX Transportation's request for Louisiana Supreme Court review of an $850 million punitive damages award, the largest award in Louisiana history, on due proces grounds. Due process required that compensatory liability be determined before class-wide punitive damages could be assessed in this case. The parties, however, settled the dispute before the court could decide whether it would review the case.
Amicus brief in support of writ of review filed 8/29/01. Settled 11/21/01. View brief
|
Share This Page