Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief arguing against consideration of a defendant’s wealth when determining whether punitive damages exceed constitutional limits. A lower court assessed punitive damages of $22.5 million, a sum above U.S. Supreme Court precedent, against an apartment owner and manager for injuries resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty furnace. Caps on punitive damages are necessary to safeguard against excessive jury awards that negatively impact shareholders, customers and employees. The NAM’s brief argued that 1) courts should not use evidence of wealth to increase the constitutional limit of a jury’s punitive damages award; 2) evidence of wealth does not provide a consistent or meaningful measure for evaluating the constitutionality of a punitive damages award; and 3) if wealth is relevant, it is a mitigating factor or limited to cases where the defendant’s wealth stems from the conduct that harmed the plaintiff. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reduced the size of the punitive damages award using the factors outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.