Opinion ID: 1793497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is the jury verdict contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and contrary to law?

Text: Independent Life first repeats its arguable reason defense, discussed above, and then asserts that the award should be reduced. In support of its argument for reduction, Independent Life cites cases from foreign jurisdictions which, arguably, require some relation between the amount of punitive damages and the amount of actual damages, Johnson v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 335 F. Supp. 390 (W.D.Mo. 1971); Dowling v. J.C. Penney Co., 300 F. Supp. 307 (W.D.Pa. 1969); Wegner v. Rodeo Cowboys Association, 290 F. Supp. 369 (D.Colo. 1968), and then cites Mississippi cases for the proposition that the jury, in its determination of the amount of punitive damages, is not to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Commodore Corp. v. Bailey, 393 So.2d 467 (Miss. 1981); Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Hawthorne, 225 Miss. 1, 82 So.2d 454 (1955). Finally Independent Life cites Henderson v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., supra , in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the amount of actual damages is one factor to be considered in assessing punitive damages. In the case at bar the actual damages were $412.20. The punitive damages were $250,000, and Independent Life's net worth was in excess of $130,000,000. Thus, the award of punitive damages was less than two tenths of one percent of Independent Life's net worth. This award, though it is vastly larger than the actual damages, is not excessive in light of such factors as 1) the amount necessary to punish and deter the wrongdoer, 2) the amount necessary to deter others, and 3) Independent Life's financial worth. Banker's Life and Casualty v. Crenshaw, 483 So.2d 254, 278 (Miss. 1985), probable jurisdiction noted, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1367, 94 L.Ed.2d 683 (1987). The trial court committed no reversible error in the case at bar. Independent Life's actions warranted the imposition of actual and punitive damages. The judgment is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. HAWKINS, P.J., dissents.