Opinion ID: 1936175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appropriateness of Punitive Damages

Text: RKW first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages. For punitive damages to be awarded, the injuries must have some element of aggression or some coloring of insult, malice, or gross negligence, evincing ruthless disregard for the rights of others, so as to take the case out of the ordinary rule. Finkelberg v. Luckett, 608 So.2d 1214, 1220 (Miss. 1992). That is, the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages only if he has demonstrated a willful or malicious wrong or the gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others. Boling v. A-1 Detective & Patrol Service, Inc., 659 So.2d 586, 588 (Miss. 1995); Strickland v. Rossini, 589 So.2d 1268, 1273 (Miss. 1991); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp. 1995). In determining the propriety of submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury, the trial court decides whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant's conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable, hypothetical trier of fact could find either malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Murphree, 653 So.2d 857, 863 (Miss. 1994), citing Colonial Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Lee, 525 So.2d 804, 808 (Miss. 1988). RKW argues that there was no evidence of malice or ill will of any kind in this case. Indeed, the Chairman of the Board of RKW testified that he liked Joe Henson, and thus, the granting of punitive damages was error. However, there was also evidence to suggest that if RKW's customers filed too many claims, RKW could lose the business of the insurance companies. The claim arising from Joe's death would be a factor in determining RKW's loss ratio, and there was testimony that keeping the loss ratio low was an important factor in being selected to be an agent for insurance companies. Furthermore, malice or ill will is not necessary for a punitive damages award. As discussed above, punitive damages are also appropriate where the defendant acts with reckless disregard for the rights of others. RKW knew that AAA's workers' compensation policy was in effect when Joe died. There was testimony that RKW was informed that Joe's death occurred during the scope and course of his employment. RKW represented that there was no policy in effect to cover Joe's death, and thereby acted with reckless disregard for the Hensons' rights. Application of punitive damage `principles are not ironclad.' Whether a particular act or conduct justifies assessment of punitive damages `cannot come from a precise formula, but rather must come from the trial judge's life experience.' Finkelberg, 608 So.2d at 1220 (citations omitted). A breach of fiduciary duties has been recognized by this Court as an extreme or a special additional circumstance where punitive damages can be allowed. Fought v. Morris, 543 So.2d 167, 173 (Miss. 1989). Based on the foregoing analysis, there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the issue of allowing a punitive damage award.