Limitations on Punitive Damages Against Insurers Since State Farm v. Campbell: Lessons for Insurers
AbstractThis article focuses on the limitations imposed on punitive damages awards by the United States Supreme Court, concentrating tm how these limitations have been applied by lower courts in actions against insurance companies. The article begins by examining the Supreme Court's three "guideposts" for determining whether a punitive award complies with due process. The article focuses on the compensatory damages predicate for determining a punitive award pursuant to the second "guide post" requiring trial courts to examine the ratio between actual and potential harm and the punitive award. The article examines what types of damages have been included in the predicate in bad-faith claims against insurers, and argues that under black-letter contract law, only the plaintiff's bad-faith tort damages should be included in the actual or potential harm side of the ratio. Finally, the article examines how the "reprehensibility" of insurers' conduct has affected punitive awards against insurers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Western Risk and Insurance Association in its journal Journal of Insurance Issues.
Volume (Year): 31 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (James Barrese).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.