Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to r emand punitive damages claims for trial together with the r emainder of personal injury claims arising from asbestos exposure. We will deny the petition for mandamus.
Petitioners are four individuals seeking damages for injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos.
At the suggestion of the transferee judge, when the Judicial Panel remanded the petitioners' claims to the transferor courts, it withheld remand on the requests for punitive damages. This action was consistent with the transferee court's practice in multidistrict litigation asbestos cases over the past decade of retaining demands for punitive damages while allowing the compensatory matters to proceed to trial. The practice has been noted by this Court before. On that basis, petitioners assert that the law tr eats punitive damages as a form of relief, not a claim or cause of action. Respondents point out that claims for punitive damages, although dependent on factors justifying compensatory awards, require separate elements of proof such as malice, fraud, or gross negligence.