Opinion ID: 1860134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Directed Verdict on the punitive damages

Text: Appellant also argues that the court erred in refusing to grant its motion for a directed verdict on Brooks' claim for punitive damages for reasons that the evidence did not establish same. Appellee, however, asserts, and we agree, that this issue was not presented in Ten Broeck's motion for discretionary review. Arguments that punitive damages violate the policy of federal and state law banning employment discrimination and that punitive damages cannot be assessed under Patterson, 172 S.W.3d at 361, when an employee's conduct is outside the scope of his employment, and of no benefit to his employer, questions we have previously addressed in sections III(B) and IV, do not present, or preserve, this issue as now argued by the Appellant. [I]ssues not raised in the motion for Discretionary Review will not be addressed by this Court despite being briefed before us and addressed at oral argument. Wells v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 332, 335 (Ky.2006).