Opinion ID: 2045157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amount of Punitive Award

Text: Applying these tests to the facts and the jury findings in the case at bar convinces us that an award of substantial punitive damages against IBP is warranted and is supported by the evidence and the law. Arndt knowingly engaged in a malicious course of conduct that was in line with the climate established by IBP concerning its injured workers. Her conduct was an attempt to manipulate and interfere with the medical treatment received by Wilson and other injured workers. She was aware of and fostered this treatment of injured workers, knowing that a financial gain came to her and other management personnel thereby through IBP's safety award system. As part of this purpose, she participated in manipulating work records of injured employees which may have resulted in falsification of OSHA records. The extent and nature of the outrageous conduct is considerable when compared with other cases that have assessed the reprehensibility of defendants' acts. The evidence indicated that Wilson's treatment as an injured worker was not a one-time or isolated instance. The interference with the diagnosis and treatment of his injury could have resulted in a pronounced worsening of an already serious condition. Other workers with injuries could be profoundly affected as a result of the policy actions carried out by Arndt and IBP. For these reasons, we find the future deterrence aspect of our reviewing principles to be of great importance. Of minor significance is the ratio between the compensatory and punitive damages assessed. One of the factors approved by the Supreme Court and our court for assessing the imposition of punitive damages is the financial position of the defendant. This bears on the factor of deterring like conduct in the future, also accepted by both courts. See Haslip, 499 U.S. at 21, 111 S.Ct. at 1045, 113 L.Ed.2d at 22; Spaur, 510 N.W.2d at 867 (factors 5 and 7). IBP is the largest producer of fresh beef and pork in the world. It operates eighteen separate beef or pork plants in nine states, as well as nineteen other plants, warehouses, tanneries and refineries. The company has a sales network of ten regional and international service centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. IBP employs 29,000 people, had net sales in 1993 of $11.6 billion and had a net worth in 1993 of $600 million. Applying, for our posttrial review process, all of the factors listed as appropriate in BMW, Haslip, Spaur, Ryan, and Ezzone, we hold that the amount of punitive damages against IBP as found by the trial jury is excessive. Nevertheless, the assessment of substantial punitive damages against IBP is supported by this record. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment for plaintiff against defendants for $4000 in compensatory damages is affirmed; judgment for punitive damages in favor of plaintiff against defendant IBP is affirmed in the amount of $2 million if plaintiff agrees to a remittitur of all punitive damages exceeding that amount. Consistent with the statutory directive of Iowa Code section 668A.1(2)(b), as interpreted by Fernandez v. Curley, 463 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 1990), this amount shall be apportioned by judgment entries as follows: (1) For payment of applicable fees and costs, including plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees applicable to the recovery of the $2 million award, from the gross punitive damage award of $2 million. (2) For twenty-five percent of the $2 million award in favor of plaintiff ($500,000). (3) For the remainder of the $2 million award after satisfying (1) and (2) apportionments to the Civil Reparations Trust Fund. The judgments shall also include interest as provided by law. If plaintiff rejects these remittitur conditions, a new trial shall be ordered by the trial court under the conditions determined in the trial court's order of March 23, 1995, which we have described in this opinion. On the cross-appeal, we affirm except as modified by our disposition on the appeal. We have reviewed all the issues raised by both parties and find that they are disposed of by this determination or are without merit. Costs are assessed against defendant IBP. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL AND REMANDED; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.