Opinion ID: 2584803
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficient evidence supports the award of punitive damages.

Text: Lorenz argues that her behavior was not egregious enough to trigger the jury's assessment of $500 in punitive damages against her. She notes that the jury found that her actions were not motivated by financial gain and that she did not know of the adverse consequences of the fire. Alaska Statute 09.17.020 governs awards of punitive damages. The statute provides that the plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct (1) was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives; or (2) evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person. [31] A showing of malice is not required. It is sufficient to show that the defendant's conduct `amounted to reckless indifference to the rights of others, and conscious action in deliberate disregard of [those rights].' [32] We will reverse a punitive damages award only if consideration of the record as a whole leaves us with a firm conviction of error and the need to intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [33] The jury reasonably could have determined that Lorenz acted with reckless indifference to Maddox's interests. [34] Maddox testified at trial that Lorenz mocked him for raising concerns before she started the first fire. Maddox further testified that the two fires were sizable, that the wind was blowing in the direction of his property, that the fires consumed objects containing lead, that the fires deposited a great deal of ash, and that explosions within the fires threw pieces of metal onto his property. The jury reasonably could have credited Maddox's testimony. Lorenz's arguments are insufficient to upset the jury's determination.