Opinion ID: 156355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Punitive Damages Exceed the Limit Defined by Oklahoma Law?

Text: 63 Conoco next asserts that the punitive damage award exceeds the limits imposed under Oklahoma law. Our review is limited to plain error because Conoco did not present this argument to the district court. 64 Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C) provides as follows:Category II. Where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 65
66 .... 67 the jury, in a separate proceeding conducted after the jury has made such finding and awarded actual damages, may award exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed the greatest of: 68
69
70 c. the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons or entities. 71 The trial court shall reduce any award for punitive damages awarded pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph c of this paragraph by the amount it finds the defendant or insurer has previously paid as a result of all punitive damage verdicts entered in any court of the State of Oklahoma for the same conduct by the defendant or insurer. 72 Id. 73 The instruction given to the jury in the punitive damages phase included the following: 74 In no event should the punitive damages you award exceed the greater of $500,000.00, or twice the amount of actual damages you have previously awarded, or the increased financial benefit derived by Conoco as a direct result of the conduct causing the damage to Okland and other persons. 75 Appellant's App. Vol. I at 183. For purposes of awarding punitive damages, the jury had already found during the first stage of trial there was clear and convincing evidence that Conoco acted intentionally and with malice towards others including Okland. See supra note 2. This finding put the case in Category II under Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C), which limits punitive damages just as the instruction given to the jury indicated. 76 Conoco asserts that the jury should have been instructed that only subsections (a) and (b) of § 9.1(C) applied to the award of punitive damages and that it could not award punitives exceeding twice the amount of actual damages awarded. Directing us to no authority, it contends that Category II's third limitation on damages--the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant as a result of the conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons--is restricted to the increased benefit from a single act, not from multiple acts committed against multiple parties, and is, therefore, inapplicable in this case. Section 9.1 is a relatively new Oklahoma statute and neither the federal nor state courts have yet interpreted this new part of the statute. 77 We believe a plain reading of the statute manifests the legislature's intent that the conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons would include conduct committed during the same time period pursuant to a uniform policy. We do not think the language requires that the conduct be a single isolated event, nor that it is so restrictive as to preclude ongoing fraudulent conduct. One of the factors to be considered in awarding punitive damages, is in fact, the duration of the misconduct and any concealment of it. Id. § 9.1(A). The last paragraph of § 9.1(C) requires the trial court to reduce the punitive damage award by the amount it finds the defendant or insurer has previously paid as a result of all punitive damage verdicts entered in any court of the State of Oklahoma for the same conduct by the defendant or insurer. This, too, indicates that the statute was intended to allow punitive damages as a penalty for a general policy or decision that harmed many persons. 78 Okland presented evidence that Conoco had defrauded others as well as Okland in adopting a policy by which it would enrich itself by surreptitiously excluding ten cents from the resale price of each unit of gas. See, e.g., Appellant's App. Vol. III at 924-33, 939-45, 982-84, 1027-33; Appellee's Supplemental App. at 74, 87, 90, 91, 223-26. Okland also presented evidence, without objection, that Conoco reaped between $41.7 and $73 million from this decision. Appellant's App. Vol. IV at 1546-50. We therefore conclude that the jury could have awarded the $3 million in punitive damages even if, as Conoco argues, the actual damage award for tort was substantially less than the $1,559,633.12 awarded as actual damages. 79