Opinion ID: 2518098
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The punitive damages must be reversed and remanded

Text: In light of our decision to reduce Betsinger's compensatory damages award by more than 80%, we must now consider the appropriateness of his punitive damages award against Callahan and DHI Mortgage. As against Callahan, the punitive damages award must be stricken in its entirety because Betsinger did not recover any compensatory damages from Callahan other than those relating to emotional distress. See Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 582-83, 138 P.3d 433, 451-52 (2006); City of Reno v. Silver State Flying Serv., 84 Nev. 170, 180, 438 P.2d 257, 264 (1968) (Punitive damages cannot be awarded by a jury unless it first finds compensatory damages.). As against DHI Mortgage, the punitive damages award must be remanded for further proceedings because we cannot be sure what the jury would have awarded in punitive damages as a result of the substantially reduced compensatory award. Because of our uncertainty, we are unable to meaningfully review the excessiveness of the current punitive damages award, and we refuse to arbitrarily reduce the amount. See Bongiovi, 122 Nev. at 582-83, 138 P.3d at 452 (explaining that we review whether punitive damages are excessive de novo to `ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered' (quoting State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003))). Accordingly, we affirm the district court court's judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We concur: HARDESTY, DOUGLAS, CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS and PICKERING, JJ.