Opinion ID: 783131
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ratio of punitive to compensatory damages

Text: 98 The second and perhaps most commonly cited indicium of an unreasonable or excessive punitive damages award is its ratio to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff. BMW, 517 U.S. at 580, 116 S.Ct. 1589. This guidepost is generally analyzed by comparing punitive and compensatory damages. Id. at 581, 116 S.Ct. 1589. 99 In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. Id. at 573, 116 S.Ct. 1589. The Court has refused to give a precise mathematical guideline for the constitutionally acceptable range, but the two cases in which the Court struck down punitive damages awards both involved rather large ratios of punitive to compensatory damages: in BMW, the ratio was a breathtaking 500 to 1, id.; in State Farm, the ratio was 145 to one, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1524. Likewise, in Cooper Industries, where the Court questioned the size of the award but declined to rule on its constitutionality, the ratio was ninety to one. 532 U.S. at 429, 121 S.Ct. 1678. 100 Despite its refusal to establish a firm numerical limit to the ratio, the BMW Court noted that precedent suggested that the relevant ratio was not more than 10 to 1, 517 U.S. at 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589. In State Farm, the Court decline[d] again to impose a brightline ratio which a punitive damage award cannot exceed, ___ U.S. at ___, 123 S.Ct. at 1524, but offered similar guidance on the general limits to an acceptable ratio: [I]n practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio ... will satisfy due process. Id. Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process than the extreme ratios found in BMW or State Farm. Id. 101 In this case, the ratio of the $2.6 million punitive damage award to the $360,000 compensatory damage award is slightly more than seven to one. This is of course a single-digit ratio, far below the ratios at issue in BMW, Cooper Industries, and State Farm. We are aware of no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit case disapproving of a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and we decline to extend the law in this case. The ratio here is not constitutionally excessive.