Opinion ID: 1190415
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of punitive damages

Text: In COL Nos. 29 and 31, the trial court denied WBIC's prayer for punitive damages, concluding that WBIC's claim was not supported by the evidence and being unable to find any intentional or deliberate action by Amfac which [would] warrant[] or justif[y] such an award. WBIC contends that these COLs are erroneous because the manifest weight of evidence supports ... an award of punitive damages. Amfac counters that the trial court correctly denied WBIC's punitive damage claim because there is an absence of clear and convincing evidence that Amfac breached the Indemnification Agreement maliciously or wantonly. Award or denial of punitive damages is within the sound discretion of the trier of fact. See, e.g., Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 647 F.Supp. 303, 323 (W.D.Tenn.1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 855 F.2d 1188 (1988); Haskins v. Shelden, 558 P.2d 487, 494 (Alaska 1976); Newman v. Basin Motor Co., 98 N.M. 39, 644 P.2d 553, 558 (N.M.Ct.App.1982); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. d (1979). The trier of fact's decision to grant or deny punitive damages will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion. Haskins, 558 P.2d at 494. In Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 16-17, 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989), we established the requisite standard of proof in this jurisdiction to support an award of punitive damages: [F]or ... punitive damage claims we adopt the clear and convincing standard of proof. The plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has acted wantonly or oppressively or with such malice as implies a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations, or where there has been some wilful misconduct or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. (Citation omitted.) Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is no clear and convincing evidence that Amfac wantonly, oppressively, maliciously, or wilfully breached the Indemnification and Letter Agreements such as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. [23] Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying WBIC's punitive damages claim.