Opinion ID: 786763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability under California Law

Text: 51 We review de novo the availability of punitive damages. EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 156 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.1998). Under California law Hangarter was entitled to punitive damages if she proved by clear and convincing evidence that [Defendants] ha[ve] been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Cal. Civ.Code § 3294(a). 52 Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that the jury's award of punitive damages was consistent with California law. Bertero v. Nat'l Gen. Corp., 13 Cal.3d 43, 118 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608, 624 (1974). California courts have upheld the awarding of punitive damages based on conduct nearly identical to that alleged of Defendants. In Moore, the court held that the fact that an insurance policy disregards applicable California law could serve as [o]ne factor to consider in evaluating an award of punitive damages.... The jury could reasonably conclude that certain aspects of defendant's deceptive claims practices were particularly invidious because lay persons would be unlikely to discover the deception. Moore, 197 Cal.Rptr. at 895. Indeed, lay persons would be unlikely to know that they had an established right under California law to have coverage determined using the broader Erreca standard rather than the explicit language of defendant's policy. Id. at 895-96. 53 Additionally, California courts have stated that biased medical examinations and claims targeting practices could serve as a basis for punitive liability under California law. Id. at 897. As the court in Moore held, 54 [l]ooking at the record, as we must, in a light most favorable to the judgment, it appears the jury could properly have concluded the conduct of defendant in this case was highly reprehensible. The jury could conclude that defendant consciously pursued a practice or policy of cheating insureds out of benefits by obtaining incorrect opinions of total disability from treating physicians. 55 Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, the jury could conclude that plaintiff's own treating physician was misled by defendant's systematic claims practices and that defendant acted in bad faith by summarily denying plaintiff's claim even though her treating physician had indicated she could not work at her regular occupation. Id. 56 Finally, California courts have held that punitive damages are warranted where the cumulative evidence supports a finding of intent to injure, since [e]vidence establishing `conscious disregard of another's rights' is evidence indicating that the defendant was aware of the probable consequences of his or her acts and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. Notrica v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 70 Cal.App.4th 911, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 113 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence proffered at trial that Defendants disregarded Erreca's definition of total disability, engaged in biased medical examinations, misinformed Hangarter regarding her potential benefits, and employed policies to achieve net termination ratios could support a jury's finding that Defendants had a conscious course of conduct, firmly grounded in established company policy that disregarded the rights of insureds. Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 21 Cal.3d 910, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980, 987 (1978). 57 The district court therefore did not err in concluding that the jury's award of punitive damages was consistent with California law.