Court Opinion

ID: 9801040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:45:18.08839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:21.450901
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority’s syllabus paragraphs and the holding in Part I of its opinion. Because *559this case does not merit the awarding of punitive damages, however, I dissent from the result reached in Part II of the majority’s opinion.
The majority concludes that Homestead “consciously disregarded” Zoppo’s right to collect for his loss. I disagree. The record indicates that Homestead’s investigation was less than thorough, but does not reveal any conscious conduct by Homestead to deprive Zoppo of his insurance benefits. The trial court should not have submitted the issue of punitive damages to the jury.