Opinion ID: 2638935
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Casciola's conduct was extremely reprehensible.

Text: [T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. [35] The Supreme Court has set out factors to consider in measuring the reprehensibility of the tortious conduct: We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.[ [36] ] While only two of these criteria apply to Casciola's conduct  Casciola's conduct involved intentional deceit and involved a series of misrepresentations (indeed, it appears to be part of a larger pattern of wrongdoing)  the facts in this case more than demonstrate the egregiousness of Casciola's conduct. The analysis undertaken above pursuant to Alaska law shows that Alaska considers Casciola's conduct to be extremely blameworthy. The superior court found that Casciola's actions were outrageous, malicious and with bad motives ... to deliberately pocket F.S. Air's $25,000 for Defendant's own financial profit and to F.S. Air's detriment. This finding was correct given the undisputed evidence at trial that Casciola's actions were not part of an isolated incident but emblematic of a larger pattern of fraud and that the injuries suffered by F.S. Air flowed from Casciola's intentional malice, trickery, or deceit.