U.S. Supreme Court Limits Punitive-Damage Awards

Bloomberg ^ | 4/7/3 | Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo

[WaveThatFlag]

The U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on punitive damages, striking down a $145 million award State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. was told to pay a Utah couple in a dispute over an accident claim.

The 6-3 ruling said the U.S. Constitution in most cases limits punitive damages to 10 times the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The punitive award against State Farm was 145 times the $1 million the couple had won for mental anguish they suffered when the insurer wouldn't settle a claim against them.

[hchutch]

Wow, that's pretty nice.

We now have a limit on punitive damages, to be specific, 10 times actual harm.

Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

[PoisedWoman]

Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia dissented.

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ten times actuals is pretty reasonable.

[hchutch]

And the trial lawyers cannot appeal THIS one. :)

This is shaping up to be a pretty good Monday.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Maybe I missed it. Where exactly does it say what the SC reduced the damaged to?

[GnL]

They probably dissented because the Constitution says nothing about limiting punitive damage awards.

[The Man]

What they were thinking is that it is not right for the Supreme Court to be making up rules like this with highly suspect at best constitutional grounding.

Even if it is a good and logical rule.

[Always Right]

Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

States rights , and nothing specific in the constitution granting the feds authority to set arbitary limits comes to mind.

[Capt. Jake]

I imagine they dissented because there is no textual basis in the constitution for limiting punitive damages awards in state courts. The state legislatures or courts should be free to make such determinations and not have them imposed by unelected, life-tenured federal judges. While I may favor the result, the process by which the result was arrived at may be as illegitmate as Roe- v. Wade. Scalia and Thomas are ususally right.

[KansasCanadian]

Good deal, I hope this can be made retroactive--the kind of news that will further help the economy

[ml/nj]

Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

Maybe, that this isn't addressed in the Constitution, and right or wrong it isn't their call to make?

ML/NJ

[ER_in_OC,CA]

From the article, it seems clear that Thomas and Scalia find it inappropriate for the federal judiciary to determine that a state court damage finding invalidates "due process" simply because of the size of the judgement.

Seems like they're both very consistent. Given their brilliance, I'd bet they could convince me of the rightness of their position, though as a stockholder in Altria Corp, this is welcome news for me!

I'm sure Scalia would tell you that court judgements are often insane, and many lawsuits are without merit. But he would likely say that the proper way to address this is for more judges to apply strict legal standards. He's certainly right "in theory." But I don't have the patience for this theory to play out just now...

[Poohbah]

Eighth Amendment regarding excessive bail or fines comes to mind.

The question is "What is excessive?"

[Viva Le Dissention]

Not surprisingly, the nitwits that wrote this article again screwed up the opinion of the Court. The Court stated:

"With regard to the second Gore guidepost, the Court has been reluctant to identify concrete constitutional limits on the ratio be-tween harm, or potential harm, to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; but, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process. See, e.g., Gore, supra, at 581."

Note that this is the same thing that's been happening for the past 7 years, since Gore was decided.

[Dane]

Democratic party lobbyist trial lawyers across the country along with their titular leader, Senator John Edwards(NC) and Democrat Presidential candidate ,are throwing and breaking things across their offices right now, IMO.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Since there is so much discussion, I am posting the full text of Scalia and Thomas's opinions.

JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
I adhere to the view expressed in my dissenting opinion in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 598-99 (1996), that the Due Process Clause pro-vides no substantive protections against “excessive” or “‘unreasonable’” awards of punitive damages. I am also of the view that the punitive damages jurisprudence which has sprung forth from BMW v. Gore is insusceptible of principled application; accordingly, I do not feel justified in giving the case stare decisis effect. See id., at 599. I would affirm the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court.

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment below because “I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards.” Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U. S. 424, 443 (2001) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 599 (1996) (SCALIA, J., joined by THOMAS, J., dissenting)). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

[CA Conservative]

Without more information, I think Scalia and Thomas were probably concerned with the state's rights issue. I would disagree with that argument in this case, in that the plaintiff invoked the federal issue by using the defendants practices in other states to attempt to prove their case, and by basing their claim for damages upon the defendant's assets in other states. But in general, I am in favor of deferance to the state courts where there is no federal issue (in this case, interstate commerce).

[GnL]

Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

[Eva]

Interesting, our state legislature just refused to even consider a Republican tort reform proposal.