recent jurisprudence AFFECT punitive
A number of United States Supreme Court decisions have set the standard for the imposition of punitive damages.
In State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the Supreme Court of the signs previously in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). The decision is aimed Gore appellate courts reviewing punitive damages awards, the following three factors: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct, (2) the ratio between the actual and potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award, and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or in similar cases.
In State Farm, the Supreme Court emphasized that the three Gore factors, the most important indicator of the adequacy of the punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's behavior. The Supreme Court then the five factors previously established to measure the Gore reprehensibility of the defendant's behavior, whether the harm was physical or economic, whether the difficult behavior demonstrated an indifference or reckless disregard for the health or safety of others, whether the behavior with repeated actions or was an isolated incident, and whether the damage resulted from intentional malice, deceit or fraud, or coincidence.
The United States Supreme Court oral arguments in Philip Morris v. Williams, number 05-1256, at 31 October 2006. In Phillip Morris, the Supreme Court will, for the first time, are invited to use the Gore guide to a case in connection with the death of the plaintiff - a long time, the smoker died of lung cancer - and not just a case of economic losses. In Phillip Morris, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the punitive damages award to the family of a deceased smoker more than a hundred times the amount of actual damages. Phillip Morris' appeal presents two questions for the court: (1), in reviewing whether a jury award of punitive damages, an appellate court to the conclusion that the conduct of the defendant was highly reprehensible and analogous to crime, the Constitution of the requirement that punitive reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff, and (2) whether due process permits a jury to punish the defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-Parties.
HAND, a company in punitive damages CASE
Punitive operations often damage a substantial, if not the most important, the exposure a company, in a lawsuit. The handling of punitive damages must be part of a larger litigation strategy. It is important that a company, in conjunction with the study, advice and a comprehensive action plan to prevent or minimize exposure to punitive companies. The Action Plan should be the discovery and testimony, the selection, the difference between the mistakes that have been made, and in his behavior that is damaging. In the main proceedings, efforts must be made by jurors, the rational analysis of the evidence, rather than their results solely on anger or pity, so a chance for a positive outcome for the company.
Insurability of punitive damages
Currently there are no clear guidelines either by the Texas legislature or the Texas Supreme Court on the question of whether Texas public policy prohibits insurance providers from the indemnifying an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence. Texas appellate courts have long struggled with the issue and have reached different conclusions. Some courts have found that the parties should have the opportunity to enter into contracts freely, and make sure that the insurer with its contractual obligations. Lakeside. Intern . Specialty Ins. V. Triton Energy Co., Ltd., 52 SW.3d 337 (Tex App. - Dallas, 2001). Other courts have found that the insurance punitive damages against public policy, as the purpose of the award of punitive damages (to punish the wrongdoer and to deter similar behavior in the future), by the offender to the burden of the payment of punitive damages to its insurer. See Milligan v. State Farm Mut. Car. Ins. Co., 940 SW.2d 228 (Tex App. - Houston, 1997).
The Texas Supreme Court has so far refused to consider the question whether punitive damages are insurable. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed the issues related to punitive damages awards to the Supreme Court of Texas, in a case in August 2004, currently before the Supreme Court of Texas. See Fairfield Insurance Company v. Steve Martin Paving, LP, 381 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2004).
Patrick Madden is a shareholder with the Dallas law firm Macdonald Devin, PC His practice focuses on civil litigation and clients on risk management consulting and avoidance. He can be reached at 214-744-3300 or http://www.macdonalddevin.com
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น