He was incredulous that anyone would take such a threat seriously. The judge no doubt has sound legal logic to make his conclusion seem perfectly reasonable. Everyone else, armed with nothing but the bald facts, may have assumed that point at least was settled. Exxon's larger argument attacks punitive damages in general. Raising the specter of runaway juries drunk on blank checks, they say that business cannot be reasonably conducted in such an environment.
Business needs to know what costs they can expect to face.
Thus Exxon argues for a cap on punitive damages. Something which hasn't happened in this case or similar cases, they say. Law professor Michael Rustad, a well known expert on such things, said punitive damage caps would eliminate their effect as a deterrent. These people want to know the price of wrongdoing in advance so they can include it in the cost of doing business. It could take months for the court to publish its decision.