Opinion ID: 1415450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Standard for Assessing Whether Punitive Damages Are Excessive

Text: In the instant case, State Farm also assigned error on the issue of the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury. The majority opinion declined to address the issue because a new trial was being granted. I believe the majority opinion should have addressed the issue in light of principles set out by the Supreme Court in Campbell. As I previously indicated, in Campbell the jury awarded the plaintiff one-million dollars in compensatory damages and one hundred forty five million dollars in punitive damages. In its appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the insurer argued that the amount of punitive damages violated due process. The Supreme Court agreed with the insurer. In doing so, the opinion indicated the following: We decline again to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.... While these ratios are not binding, they are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with [greater] ratios. . . . Campbell 538 U.S. at 425, 123 S.Ct. at 1524, 155 L.Ed.2d at 605-606 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Campbell reversed the punitive damages award and remanded the case to the Utah supreme court for reconsideration of the award. On remand, the Utah supreme court reduced the punitive damages award and held that the insurer's conduct warranted punitive damages of $9,018,780.75, nine times the compensatory and special damages for emotional distress[.] Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 869188 (Utah Apr. 23, 2004). See Bardis v. Oates, 119 Cal.App.4th 1, 14 Cal. Rptr.3d 89, (2004), 119 Cal.App.4th 1, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 89, 92 (2004) ([I]n light of recent due process constraints laid down by the United States Supreme Court in State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Campbell, we shall modify the punitive damages award from $7 million to $1.5 million, and affirm the judgment as modified.). But see Reatta Resources, Inc. v. Kraft, 2004 WL 423144, at  (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar.9, 2004) (Reatta has not shown error apparent on the face of the record merely by pointing to a 33 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages. Therefore, we are unable to conclude from the ratio alone that the punitive damage award is excessive.). In view of the foregoing, I concur.