Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts
CHAPTER
42: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
by Andrew L.
Frey and Evan M. Tager (1)
Table of Sections
42.1 Scope Note.
42.2 Tactical Issues in Punitive Damages
Litigation.
(a) The Complaint.
(b) The Answer.
(c) Discovery.
(1) Financial Condition.
(2) "Other Acts" Evidence.
(3) Expert Testimony on the Proper Level of Punitive
Damages.
(d) Procedural Motions.
(1) Choice of Law.
(2) Bifurcation or Trifurcation of Trial.
(3) Addressing the Problem of Multiple Punitive Awards for the
Same Conduct.
(4) Standard of Proof.
(e) Evidentiary In Limine Motions.
(1) Financial Condition.
(2) Evidence of the Defendant's Corporate Status or Out of
State Residence.
(3) "Other Acts" Evidence.
(f) Developing the Plaintiffs Affirmative Case.
(g) Developing a Punitive Damages Defense.
(1) Federal or State Regulation.
(2) Compliance with Industry Custom or Standards.
(3) Noninvolvement of Management.
(4) Subsequent Remedial Measures.
(5) Fines for Comparable Misconduct.
(6) The Real-World Consequences of High Punitive Exactions.
(7) Expert Economic Testimony.
(8) Other Judgments, Settlements, and Lawsuits.
(9) Profits.
(10) Character Evidence.
(h) Summations
(i) Jury Instructions.
(j) Verdict Forms/Special Interrogatories.
(k) Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
(l) Pre and Post-Judgment Interest.
(m) Bonding/Stays.
(n) Insurance Coverage for Punitive Awards.
42.3 Punitive Damages Case Law .
(a) Early Punitive Damages Law.
(b) The Modern Expansion of Punitive Damages.
(c) Supreme Court Punitive Damages Jurisprudence.
(1) Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal
Inc.
(2) Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip.
(3) TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
(4) Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg.
(5) BMW of North America, Inc. v.
Gore.
(d) The Impact of BMW In the Lower Courts.
(1) Survey of Post-BMW Excessiveness Decisions.
(2) The Reprehensibility Guidepost in the Lower Courts.
(3) The Ratio Guidepost in the Lower Courts.
(4) The Comparative Fines Guidepost in the Lower Courts.
(5) The Role of Corporate Financial Condition
Post-BMW.
42.4 Checklist of Essential Allegations and Defenses in
Punitive Damages Cases.
42.5 Checklist of Sources of Proof of Essential Allegations and
Defenses.
42.6 Jury Instructions.
42.1 Scope Note
For better or for worse, punitive damages have become a fixture
of tort litigation. Whereas cases seeking punitive damages used to be the
exception, they now are commonplace. In today's legal world, it is hard to
imagine any lawyer pleading an intentional tort and not seeking punitive damages
(unless, of course, the state whose law governs the claim does not permit
punitive damages). It is thus important for lawyers representing both defendants
and plaintiffs to be familiar with the legal and tactical issues that arise in
punitive damages cases. This chapter will provide practical guidance to
practitioners pursuing and defending punitive damages claims. The chapter
attempts to identify key tactical issues relating to punitive damages at each
stage of a litigated case. Consistent with other chapters in this publication,
this chapter begins with the strategic points and discusses relevant substantive
law thereafter. Practitioners who are not conversant with developments in
punitive damages law, particularly the Supreme Court's decisions in the area,
may find it useful to read the substantive sections before reading the sections
relating to trial tactics.
One caveat is necessary at the outset. The authors generally
represent businesses against whom punitive damages have been sought or obtained.
Although we have attempted to provide advice that will be useful to
practitioners representing plaintiffs as well as defendants, our perspective
remains that of defense lawyers who feel that punitive damages are awarded too
often and in amounts that are frequently excessive.
back to
top
42.2 Tactical Issues in Punitive Damages
Litigation
This section will attempt to provide practitioners with a road
map for litigating punitive damages cases that begins with the complaint and
ends with issues relating to the bonding of a punitive award. Because the law
relating to punitive damages varies dramatically from state to state, we do not
purport to provide advice that is specific to any particular jurisdiction. As
with any claim, it is absolutely critical for practitioners to familiarize
themselves with the punitive damages regime of the state whose law governs the
claim. Obviously, state substantive punitive damages law governs in federal
diversity cases.1 It is less clear to what extent federal courts will
apply state procedures governing claims for punitive damages. Some
procedures--such as limitations on pleading of punitive damages
claims--generally have been regarded as part and parcel of the state punitive
damages regime and therefore have been liberally utilized by federal courts in
diversity cases.2 Other state procedures--such as bifurcation--have
been deemed procedural and not adopted wholesale by federal
courts.3
* * *
back to
top
42.3 Punitive Damages Case Law
In this section, we provide an overview of the development of
punitive damages law from its early incarnations to its current state. We focus
in particular on the constitutional limits on punitive damages articulated by
the Supreme Court and on lower court cases applying the Supreme Court's most
recent and far-reaching ruling. An understanding of this background is important
to effective advocacy in this fast-evolving area of the law.
* * *
42.2
1. Punitive damages also are available under a variety of
federal statutes. Where appropriate, practitioners should familiarize themselves
with potentially applicable federal standards as well.
2. See, e.g., Wilson v. Edenfield, 968 F. Supp. 681,
683-684 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (holding that Florida's limitation on the pleading of
punitive damages is "substantive" and that it therefore applies in federal
court); College Craft Cos. v. Perry, No. 3-95-583, 1995 WL 783612, at *6-*7
(D.Minn. 1995) (applying Minnesota's limitation on pleading of punitive
damages); Ulrich v. City of Crosby, 848 F. Supp. 861 (D.Minn. 1994) (same).
But see Sosa v. Dryclean-USA, No. 96-3717-Civ., 1997 WL 580600, at *2
(S.D. Fla. 1997) (ruling that pleading limitations are procedural and
accordingly declining to apply Florida's limitation on the pleading of punitive
damages); Tutor Time Child Care Sys., Inc. v. Franks Inv. Group, Inc., 966 F.
Supp. 1188 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (same).
3. See, e.g., Hayes v. Arthur Young & Co., 34 F.3d
1072 (9th Cir. 1994) (bifurcation is procedural; accordingly state bifurcation
requirements do not apply in federal court); Simpson v. Pittsburgh Corning
Corp., 901 F.2d 277, 283 (2d Cir. 1990) (same).
1. * The assistance of Eileen
Penner in the preparation of this chapter is gratefully acknowledged.
back to
top
back to Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal
Courts
| 
