Insurance
Jun. 29, 2011
Another Twist for Punitive Damages?
Appellate courts step up their monitoring of punitive damages awards.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
In the continuing saga of punitive damages, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside has promulgated Behr v. Redmond, 193 Cal.App. 4th 517 (2011), petition for review denied, June 22, 2011, S192548. Before evaluating that decision, a historical review is advisable.
Generally, in the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been circumspect regarding punitive damages. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (ratio of award of punitiv...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In