Opinion ID: 2558397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount Awarded in Relationship to the Harm and Comparison to Other Cases

Text: [¶ 57] The amount awarded in punitive damages, $3,000,000, though an objectively large amount, is not inappropriate in comparison to the harm, proved to be almost $4,000,000, resulting in a ratio of less than one to one. [¶ 58] In Harris, we affirmed a $1,000,000 punitive damages awardbased on the severe reprehensible conduct of a landlord which caused both mental distress and property damages to tenantsof a ratio of sixteen to one (comparing the punitive damages award to the actual harm, as measured in compensatory damages). Harris, 2000 ME 150, ¶¶ 31-33 n. 21, 756 A.2d at 508-09 (surveying punitive awards in other jurisdictions in which awards as high as 100 to one were upheld). [¶ 59] In Shrader-Miller, we affirmed a ratio of seven to one (a $10,000 punitive damages award and a $1500 compensatory damage award), noting that the defendants' conduct was not as reprehensible as the conduct in Harris. Shrader-Miller, 2004 ME 117, ¶ 24, 855 A.2d at 1145-46. [¶ 60] In this case, the $3,000,000 punitive damages award, in relationship to the compensatory damages award, is not inherently excessive, particularly as compared to other punitive damages awards that we have affirmed.