Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): indifference or bad motive. McClellan v. Health Maintenance Org. of Pennsylvania, 413 Pa.Super. 128, 604 A.2d 1053, 1061 (1992); see also Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742, 747-48 (1984) (Restatement (2d) of Torts § 908(2) regarding imposition of punitive damages adopted in Pennsylvania). Three factors can be considered when awarding punitive damages: (1) the character of the act; (2) the nature and extent of the harm caused; and (3) the wealth of the defendant. Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 521 Pa. 97, 555 A.2d 800, 803 (1989). The bankruptcy court found that the Don-aldsons’ actions constituted outrageous conduct above and beyond the breach of fiduciary duty which justified the compensatory damages. See Smith v. Renaut, 387 Pa.Super. 299, 564 A.2d 188, 193-94 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The court first found that the Donaldsons 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a court may not award punitive damages (B) holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies (C) holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages (D) holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated (E) holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
Output (English): holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages