Source: https://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-sixth-circuit-court-Tennessee-punitive-damages-cap.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:52:50+00:00

Document:
Whether the TCJA has had a meaningful effect on Tennessee’s well-documented growth over the past seven years is difficult to say, but the damages cap has certainly ginned up its share of controversy. You can learn more about the conversation surrounding the Act after it was signed in our previous articles.
Over the past decade, the TCJA has faced judicial scrutiny in Tennessee several times, most notably in 2015 when a Hamilton County circuit judge ruled the damages cap unconstitutional.5 The Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that ruling on appeal, however, on the grounds that the jury in the case had not yet decided on punitive damages in excess of the statutory cap.
Whether punitive damages are a finding of fact varies state-by-state and based on prior case law and holdings in similar cases in states like Missouri, the Tennessee Supreme Court would likely apply its own rule and find the statute unconstitutional.
The court rejected the argument that Tennessee would follow the North Carolina Supreme Court’s position allowing caps on punitive damages in this case because its constitutional language about the right to a trial by jury is broader than the corresponding language in North Carolina’s constitution.
The “General Assembly’s power to change the common law is subject to constitutional limits,” and that, here, the inviolable right to a jury trial cannot be eliminated by the legislature.
Although punitive damages are not compensatory in nature, the right to a trial by jury has historically included the right to ask the jury to determine punitive damages for deterrence. Therefore, it argued, the state’s claim that plaintiffs are never entitled to punitive damages fails.
Caps on punitive damages are an encroachment on the jury’s fact-finding role.
The Circuit Court also concluded that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s historical rejection of the General Assembly’s attempts to regulate the right of remittitur would control in cases involving punitive damages.
As a result of this decision, the cap on punitive damages enacted by the TCJA in 2011 is, for the moment at least, deemed unconstitutional. Asked whether the state planned to appeal, Samantha Fisher, spokeswoman for Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery—who intervened in the case on behalf of the state—responded: "We are reviewing the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court."16 If no further actions are taken, then the Sixth Circuit’s holding will stand. Whether the decision will have a significant impact on Tennessee jury damages awards remains to be seen. For now, plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel alike will need to watch the Tennessee Supreme Court for a potential response to the Sixth Circuit’s ruling.
1“[Sixth] Circuit panel decision strikes down Tennessee cap on 'punitive' damage awards” (last viewed Jan. 18, 2019).
2 “Haslam Applauds Final Passage of Tennessee Civil Justice Act!” (last viewed Jan. 18, 2019).
3 “New Tennessee Law Limits Recovery of Damages for Personal Injuries” (last viewed Jan. 18, 2019).
4 “Circuit judge rules Tennessee's tort reform limits are unconstitutional” (last viewed Jan. 18, 2019).
5 Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 17-6079 (Sixth Cir. 2018).
6 Tenn. Const. art. I, § 6.
7 Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 17-6079 (Sixth Cir. 2018).
12 Boyers v. Pratt, 1 Humph. 90 (Tenn. 1839).
13 Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Freels, 144 S.W.2d 743 (Tenn. 1940).
14 Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 17-6079 (Sixth Cir. 2018).
16 “[Sixth] Circuit panel decision strikes down Tennessee cap on 'punitive' damage awards” (last viewed Jan. 18, 2019).

References: v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.