Opinion ID: 216819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Punitive Damages Under Kentucky Law

Text: Before turning to the evidentiary record, we outline the applicable legal standard governing punitive damages under Kentucky law. Kentucky has long-recognized the availability of punitive damages in tort actions. See, e.g., Horton v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 690 S.W.2d 382, 388 (Ky.1985) (collecting cases); Engleman v. Caldwell & Jones, 243 Ky. 23, 47 S.W.2d 971, 972 (1932). In 1988, Kentucky abrogated the common law of punitive damages with the enactment of Kentucky Revised Statute (K.R.S.) §§ 411.184, et seq. The statute defines punitive damages as those damages, other than compensatory and nominal damages, awarded against a person to punish and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future. K.R.S. § 411.184(1)(f); see also Young v. Vista Homes, Inc., 243 S.W.3d 352, 366-67 (Ky.Ct.App.2007). The party seeking punitive damages shall recover punitive damages only upon proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant from whom such damages are sought acted toward the plaintiff with oppression, fraud, or malice. K.R.S. § 411.184(2). Here, Ventas seeks punitive damages on the sole basis of fraud. Under the statute, [f]raud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material fact known to the defendant and made with the intention of causing injury to the plaintiff. K.R.S. § 411.184(1)(b). This standard appears similar to that required to impose tort liability for fraud under Kentucky law, which requires a showing of the following by clear and convincing evidence: (a) material representation; (b) which is false; (c) known to be false or made recklessly; (d) made with inducement to be acted upon; (e) acting in reliance thereon; and (f) causing injury. Rickert, 996 S.W.2d at 468; see also Miller's Bottled Gas, Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 817 F.Supp. 643, 646 (W.D.Ky.1993). Additionally, although not expressly stated in the statute, Kentucky law requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove that the relevant actions of the defendant were the proximate cause of the resulting injury to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290, 297 (Ky.Ct.App.2007).