CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Curtis Campbell sued his insurance carrier, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. after Plaintiff refused to settle a suit against Curtis, resulting in a jury returning a verdict against Defendant for $185,849 more than the original parties suing Defendant were willing to settle for.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor; the reason is that elementary notions of fairness enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a state may impose.
Issue. Whether a an award of $145 million in punitive damages, where full compensatory damages are $1 million, is excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Held. Yes. The judgment of the Utah Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded. Exacting appellate review ensures that an award of punitive damages is based upon an application of law, rather than a decisionmaker’s caprice. For purposes of determining whether an award of punitive damages is excessive, an award that exceeds a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages may comport with due process where a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor; the reason is that elementary notions of fairness enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a state may impose. A state cannot punish a defendant for conduct that may have been lawful where it occurred As a general rule, a State does not have a legitimate concern in imposing punitive damages to punish a defendant for unlawful acts committed outside of the State’s jurisdiction. Lawful out-of-state conduct may be probative in a civil action when it demonstrates the deliberateness and culpability of the defendant’s action in the State where it is tortious, but that conduct must have a nexus to the specific harm suffered by the plaintiff. A basic principle of federalism is that each State may make its own reasoned judgment about what conduct is permitted or proscribed within its borders, and each State alone can determine what measure of punishment, if any, to impose on a defendant who acts within its jurisdiction.
That does not make its use unlawful or inappropriate; it simply means that this factor cannot make up for the failure of other factors, such as reprehensibility, to constrain significantly an award that purports to punish a defendant's conduct.View Full Point of Law
Discussion. In this case the Supreme Court of the United States is considering what measure of punishment, by means of punitive damages, a State may permissibly impose upon a defendant in a civil case. The key to understanding the court’s decision is recognizing the court’s distinction between the divergent purposes for compensatory and punitive damages. Whereas compensatory damages are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant’s wrongful conduct, punitive damages are aimed at deterrence and retribution. However, the Supreme Court also noted that there must be some correlation between the two, such that there exists a presumption against 145 to 1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.