Court Opinion

ID: 9710007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:59:31.157119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.360664
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice,
concurring Specially.
I concur with the majority but write specially to address the issue of punitive damages.
SDCL 21-1-4.1 provides:
In any claim alleging punitive or exemplary damages, before any discovery relating thereto may be commenced and before any such claim may be submitted to the finder of fact, the court shall find, after a hearing and based upon clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against [emphasis added].
The statute imposes two conditions; a hearing must be held:
(1) Before discovery may be granted.
(2) Before any such claim may be submitted to the finder of fact.
The requirements under SDCL 21-1-4.1 were met. Discovery had already been granted on the punitive damage claim, albeit on the Brandriet’s claim under a different cause of action for emotional distress.1 The required hearing was held before submission of the issue to the jury; any delay was at the request of Norwest. Therefore, both statutory conditions were met.
SDCL 21-1-4.1 was enacted to prevent the harassment of defendants by compelling production of income tax records, net worth statements, and other financial information by insuring the claimant has a reasonable basis for the punitive damage claim. Dahl v. Sittner, 474 N.W.2d 897, 901-02 (S.D.1991) (citing Robert E. Driscoll, Statutory Restrictions on the Discovery and Trial of Punitive and Exemplary Damage Claims in South Dakota, 33 S.D.L.Rev. 247, 251 (1988)). Since there was a hearing, the purpose of the statute was satisfied.

. The jury found in favor of the bank on the emotional distress claim.