Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed a brief 8/23/04 asking the Supreme Court to review once again an adverse decision of the Utah Supreme Court in this punitive damages case against State Farm. In 2003, the Court issued a landmark ruling settting strict standards under which lower courts may allow the imposition of punitive damages. The Utah court all but ignored several of these standards when the case came back to it for review. State Farm appealed that ruling, which imposed a $9 million punitive damages award on top of a $1 million award for emotional distress. The NAM argued that Utah should comply with the Supreme Court's pronouncements that the historical tradition of double, treble and quadruple damages is "instructive" and that, when compensatory damages are "substantial," a 1:1 ratio may be the constitutional maximum. We also urged the Court to enforce the "third guidepost," involving the disparity between the punitive damages award and "civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." We argued that a $9 million award, when Utah's legislature imposes a $10,000 fine on comparable claims under the Unfair Claims Practices Act, is an attempt to eviscerate the third guidepost as a meaningful constraint. On 10/4/04, the Supreme Court denied review of the appeal.