Opinion ID: 1201234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Litigation Conduct

Text: Fortis argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider evidence that Fortis engaged in improper conduct following the September 4, 2002 rescission committee meeting on the grounds that dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 422, 123 S.Ct. 1513. We disagree for three reasons. First, the rescission was not final until June 2003 review of Mitchell's appeal. At a bare minimum, all evidence of concealment until that point is allowable. Second, this evidence is probative of Fortis's bad faith liability, not punitive damages. Lastly, Fortis waived any objection to the admission of evidence of bad acts that occurred after the second rescission committee meeting by: (1) repeatedly emphasizing their own good act of reinstatement following the temporary rescission, and (2) repeatedly arguing that Mitchell himself acted negligently in failing to submit additional information prior to March 8, 2004.