High Court limits punitive damages in an appeal of State Farm decision. (Briefing).A new ruling by the U.S. supreme Court could lead to significantly smaller punitive-damage settlements across the country, exactly what liability tort reform has been attempting to achieve for years. The April 7 decision by the Supreme Court held that an award of punitive damages Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer. in a case against State Farm of 145 times the amount of compensatory damages A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. was unreasonable and violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. the decision of the court. According to the Supreme Court's decision, the due process clause prohibits "the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments ARBITRARY PUNISHMENTS, practice. Those punishments which are left to the decision of the judge, in distinction from those which are defined by statute. ." The U.S. Supreme Court decision resulted from a State Farm appeal of a Utah Supreme Court The Utah Supreme Court is the state supreme court of Utah. It has final authority of interpretation of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court is composed of five members: a chief justice, an associate chief justice, and three justices. decision in Campbell vs. State Farm that hit the insurer with punitive damages. In October 2001, the Utah court reinstated a jury award of $145 million against State Farm, finding that the insurer "repeatedly and deliberately deceived and cheated its customers" in the way it handled auto insurance claims. Argument before the U.S. Supreme Court began Dec. 11 with State Farm's position that the $145 million jury award was out of proportion with what is permitted by due process. "According to case law, this ratio would exceed significantly the limits permitted by the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution," State Farm said in a position paper. The case involved an accident in which a State Farm insured, Curtis Campbell, was accused of making an unsafe pass that caused two other cars to collide, killing one of the other drivers. Campbell maintained his innocence, and State Farm defended him in court. A jury found Campbell to be liable for the accident. He sued State Farm for bad faith, saying State Farm should have settled the case before it went to trial. State Farm paid the entire amount of damages awarded. However, Campbell's bad-faith lawsuit against State Farm, which was filed in 1989, continued on to the Utah's highest court. Much of the focus of the Campbell case The Campbell Case of 1924 was instrumental in bringing down the first Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald. The case revolved around John Ross Campbell who, as the acting editor of the Communist Workers Weekly called on troops not to allow themselves to be used against striking was on State Farm's out-of-state claims process, which was introduced as evidence of improper activity on the part of State Farm. The U.S. Supreme Court said in its decision that the Utah court's action awarded punitive damage to punish and deter conduct that bore no relation to Campbell's harm. Due process "does not permit courts to adjudicate adjudicate (  jōō´dikāt´),v the merits of other parties' hypothetical claims under the guise of the reprehensibility rep·re·hen·si·ble adj. Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See Synonyms at blameworthy. [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin repreh analysis," the court said. According to its brief, State Farm processed more than 29,000 third-party bodily injury claims against its insureds in Utah. In that time period, Campbell's was the only case in which the defendant was exposed to a possible jury award in excess of policy limits because State Farm refused to settle within policy limits. "To transform this single instance of conduct into a springboard for huge punitive damages, plaintiffs, over State Farm's constitutional and evidentiary objections, were allowed to present to the jury massive amounts of evidence of out-of-state and dissimilar conduct," State Farm said in its brief. RELATED ARTICLE: Top 10 Verdicts 2003 To Date 1. $416 million Saudi Basic industries Corp vs Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co. Inc.; breach of contract; Delaware (March 21) 2. $250 million: Whittington vs. U.S. Steet; product liability; Illinois (March 28) 3. $164 million: Johnson vs. Trinity Materials Inc.; negligence; Texas (March 26) 4. $132 million: Fluorine fluorine (fl  `ərēn, –rĭn), gaseous chemical element; symbol F; at. no. 9; at. wt. 18.998403; m.p. −219.6°C;; b.p. −188.14°C;; density 1. On Call Ltd. vs. Fluorogas Ltd.; breach
of contract; Texas (Feb. 20)
5. $100 million: Hinton vs. 2331 Adams St Corp.; premises liability; Fla. (Jan. 30) 6. $51 million: Barnes vs. City of New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of ; excessive force; New York (March 13) 7. $47 million: Crouteau vs. Consolidated Edison This article is about the utility company in New York. For ComEd in Illinois, see Commonwealth Edison. Consolidated Edison, Inc. NYSE: ED is one of the largest investor-owned energy companies in the United States. Inc.; product liability; New York (March 26) 8. $32 million: Cargill Inc vs. Lone Star Technologies Inc.; breach of contract Minnesota (March 13) 9. $32 million: Chapman vs. Unum Provident; insurance law; California (Jan. 23) 10. $30 million: McCormack vs. Capital Electric Construction Co.; negligence; Missouri (Feb. 27) Source: National Law Journal and VerdictSearch |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion