Amicus Curiae Brief — Aetna Life Insurance v. Lavoie

Supreme Court brief1986

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Suprema Court, U.S,

FIBED

f AN

(2) AUG 3 1985

No. 84-1601

——

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, Jp.

SERRE

In the Supreme Court

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE Co.,

Appellant,

VS.

MARGARET W. Lavoie and RoGer J. LAvole, Sr..,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of Alabama

BRIEF OF ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANIES AND

CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU AS

AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT

JosEePH W. ROGERS, JR.

MARTIN QUINN

*SUSAN M. Popik

ROGERS, JOSEPH, O’DONNELL

& QUINN

311 California Street

10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 956-2828

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record

BOWNE OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. «+

190 NINTH ST. + S.F.. CA 94103 + (415) 864-2300

~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY amg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

a ae a de a re

Interest of amici curiae ......... FR Oe ho Se Pee per

ocd cok pihak adhe hes aeen

RE a aE a re er en

A statistical analysis of punitive damages awards from 1983

to the present demonstrates an increase in the size and

EY Oe IE onc uscncanddecacccesesnenes

There are no ascertainable standards by which a jury can

determine whether to award punitive damages or how

large any such award should be ....................

ili

The courts have greatly expanded the situations in which

punitive damages may be awarded..................

A. California courts have created a new cause of action

for tortious breach of contract..................

B. The definition of malice has been diluted ........

Tortious breach of contract has been expanded to

ME n den Wee estVaasensicetse

ES Seas Ps rh ae a oe

[*)

wWwiN NH — !8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Brewer v. Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.2d

ks Se Sy Se Es bois Scbb Suen santa eadeduie 6

Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168

EM vac Cee conc cnn Goh cetielate eas 11

Commercial Cotton Co., Inc. v. United California Bank,

163 Cal.App.3d 511, 209 Cal.Rptr. 551 (1985) ....... 11,12

Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Co., 50 Cal.2d

ee Cte EEE Was dd danuesagunssine ines ne 9,10

Cunningham v. Simpson, | Cal.3d 301, 81 Cal.Rptr. 855,

ee EE 5 sb awa’ oa oS See eae 8

Davis v. Hearst, 160 Cal. 143, 116 P. 530 (1911) ....... 10

Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., 155

Cal.App.3d 381, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1984) ........... 7, 8,9

Ebaugh v. Rabkin, 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 99 Cal.Rptr. 706

SOE 400 Weideaedsiskeeeensua eed uae neeuaebaher 10

Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 24 Cal.3d 809,

157 Cal.Rptr. 482, 598 P.2d 452 (1979), cert. denied and

appeal dism‘d, 445 U.S. 912 (1980) ................ 10

Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance Co., 10

Cal.App.3d 376, 89 Cal.Rptr. 78 (1970)............. 10

Gombos v. Ashe, 158 Cal.App.2d 517, 322 P.2d 933 (1958) 10

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174

GE SUD Seidnclscuuceedvespuscueeuns. i]

Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9 Cal.3d 566, i08

Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032 (1973) ............... 10

Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal.3d 388, 185 Cal.Rptr.

ey, Ge ONE EE 6.5, bn Khas bicusdataceewnss 12

Jewell v. Bank of America, Sonoma County Superior

Ss SEY Siiiad ceabhavesssnccueekbhaas’s 12

Micro/Vest v. Computerland Corp., Alameda County

eae Creede, FEW. SEO o 6. cc ccnescsccocanss i2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910, 148

Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980 (1978)................ 6, 8, 10

Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., 95 Cal.App.3d

RE ee eee 11

River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.3d

me ET rare 3

Roth v. Shell Oil Co., 185 Cal.App.2d 676, 8 Cal.Rptr. 514

SPE UEUUL EUG HELEN ob be Web baseK se creneseccens 10

Schweiso v. Williams, 150 Cal.App.3d 883, 198 Cal.Rptr.

ee Ph OE Bin Wied oo 6 806 0 Vek MS Mo 1]

Seaman’s Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil of

California, 36 Cal.3d 752, 206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 686 P.2d

ee Ee dlaidevhaneupeeeesee is 11

Silberg v. California Life Insurance Co., 11 Cal.3d 452,

113 Cal.Rptr. 711, 521 P.2d 1103 (1974) ............ 10, 11

Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693,

Tete s ce keg ieee eeiees ewes. 11

Wallis v. Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.3d 1109, 207

ic he ene Che NOES h0hs-0:8 11

Statutes

ee ree 5, 11

California Code Civil Procedure:

RO ee ee 8

ee Se eek Lunkdestcekensses 9

Other Authorities

BAJI, California Jury Instcugtions, Civil, 14.71 (6th Ed.

MCC a Una dek eipehecdcucbesucnenncsntes 6,7

Nee a oe a esas heees 3

No. 84-1601

In the Supreme Court

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE Co.,

Appellant,

VS.

MARGARET W. Lavoie and RoGerR J. LAvoig, Sr.,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of Alabama

BRIEF OF ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANIES AND

CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

_ INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU AS

AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT

INTRODUCTION

With the consent of the parties, the Association of California

Insurance Companies (“ACIC”’) and the California State Auto-

mobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau (“CSAA”) respect-

fully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of appellant

Aetna Life Insurance Company.

ACIC is an insurance trade organization comprised of 40

property-casualty insurers doing business in California, who col-

lectively write policies accounting for approximately 30% of the

property-casualty premiums in California.

CSAA is a reciprocal insurance exchange formed in 1914 to

provide automobile insurance to California drivers at reasonable

rates. CSAA currently has $30,900 policyholders and insures

approximately 1.5 million automobiles. In 1985, it will write

automobile insurance accounting for approximately $600 million

in premiums in California.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici’s interest in this case arises from the California insur-

ance industry’s experience in recent years with the explosion in

the size and number of punitive damage awards. Amici submit

that this dual-front increase is due, in great measure, to the lack

of guidelines given to juries by which they may determine

whether punitive damages should be awarded and, if so, in what

amount. Statistics demonstrating these California developments

since the beginning of 1983 are included in, and appended to, this

brief.

Amici believe that the propriety of allowing juries to impose

multi-million dollar civil penalties without any consistent stan-

dards upon which to do so presents a problem of national scope

and constitutional significance which this Court should address.

Moreover, based on the commonly-held, though unscientific,

theory that what happens in California today will be experienced

by the rest of the nation shortly, amici submit that the grim reality

demonstrated by the California statistics will not long be confined

to this state. The result in this very case is proof of that

hypothesis. Amici urge this Court to assume jurisdiction herein,

to adopt appellant’s argument that the uncontrolled award of

punitive damages violates both the Excessive Fine and Due

Process Clauses of the Constitution of the United States, and to

reverse the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

In California, the frequency with which juries award punitive

damages, and the sizes of those awards, has risen to an alarming

level. Multi-million dollar awards are now commonplace. At the

same time, there is no consistency among these awards based on

any objective criteria.

There are no ascertainable standards in California by which a

jury can determine whether an award of punitive damages should

be made or, if an award is proper, the size of such award. The

potential harm resulting from this unguided inquiry is com-

pounded by recent developments in California which have greatly

expanded the availability of punitive damages to situations in

which they have traditionally been foreclosed.

DISCUSSION

A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGE

AWARDS FROM 1983 TO THE PRESENT DEMON-

STRATES AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE AND NUMBER

OF SUCH AWARDS

In the last few months, four juries in the San Francisco Bay

Area have returned punitive damage awards of $20 million (San

Francisco, March 1985), $125 million (Oakland, March), $46.5

million (San Jose, April), and $26.7 million (Sonoma County,

July). A Los Angeles jury awarded $35 million in punitive

damages in June. In a span of only five months, a total of over

$253 million in punitive damages has been awarded in just five

cases.

Startling though these figures may be, they are fully consistent

with the general inclination of juries in California to award ever

larger amounts of punitive damages in an increasing number of

situations. As graphic illustration of this point, amici have at-

tached to this brief as Appendix A a compilation of 211 California

trial court punitive damage awards rendered between January 1,

1983 and July 19, 1985.' This appendix shows that during 1983, a

total of 73 juries awarded $69,466,504 in punitive damage awards.

' The primary source of the statistics in Appendix A is a private state-

wide publication, Jury Verdicts Weekly, which compiles for the benefit

of California lawyers reports of jury verdicts in all California state and

federal courts. Jury Verdicts Weekly does not purport to be a complete

listing of every verdict in California since the publication depends on

trial attorneys to submit the results of their cases. However, Jury

Verdicts Weekly is recognized in California as the m st authoritative

existing source of information concerning verdicts and has been referred

to as authority by California appellate courts. See, e.g., River Garden

Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.3d 986, 998, 103 Cal.Rptr.

498 (1972). Information about five large verdicts too recent to be

included in Jury Verdicts Weekly comes from newspaper articles.

In 1984, 112 juries awarded total punitive damages of

$105,682,027. In the 26 cases reported so far this year in Califor-

nia, juries have returned punitive damage verdicts totaling

$274,101,20S. These verdicts may be further broken down accord-

ing to size of verdict as follows:

$1,000-99,999 $100,000-999,999 $1 million +

No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of

Year Cases Total Cases Total Cases Total

ee 36 49% 26 36% 11 15%

Pn Bti-ewaene | 49 44% 43 38% 20 18%

Se bike deve 9 34% s 31% 9 35%

Appendix A demonstrates a rather dramatic recent increase in

the amount of punitive damage awards, whether analyzed in

terms of avetage award or gross amount. The average award in

1983 was $951,596; in 1984 it was $943,589. In approximately the

first quarter of 1985 it has been $10,542,354, or more than fen

times the average for the previous year.

The gross amount of punitive damage awards reflects a compa-

rable escalation. In 1983, the number of punitive damage awards

of under $100,000 compared to those of $100,000 or over was

approximately equal; in 1984, the ratio had risen slightly, but was

still less than 1.3:1. In 1985, there are nearly twice as many

awards over $100,000 as under that amount. A similar upward

trend is seen in the awards of $1 million or over: in 1983, they

comprised 15% of all punitive damage awards; in 1984, 18%. In

1985, that figure has nearly doubled, to 35%. The megaverdicts of

$10,000,000 or more have risen even more abruptly in 1985:

comprising only 4% of all punitive awards in 1983 (and less than

1% in 1984), they make up 23% of the 26 punitive damage awards

reported so far in 1985.

? Appendix A is divided into four parts: A.1, awards of $1,000 or more

(but less than $100,000); A.2, awards of $100,000 or more (but less

than $1,000,000); A.3, awards of $1,000,000 or more; A.4, Statistica!

Analysis Summary. For the larger awards reflected in parts A.2 and A.3,

additional information has been provided concerning *he nature of each

case, the amount of compensatory damages and, where known, the

results of trial judge and appellate court review of the verdict.

The huge increase in the size of punitive damage awards in

early 1985 is not the result of one or two aberrations: the average

of the top 15 punitive awards in each year has climbed from

$4,232,832 in 1983, to $5,877,683 in 1984, and to $18,235,680 in

1985. Even if the $125,000,000 verdict is removed from the

calculation, the average of the next 14 awards in 1985 is

$10,609,657, or 80.5% more than the average in 1984 and 150%

more than in 1983.°

THERE ARE NO ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS BY

WHICH A JURY CAN DETERMINE WHETHER TO

AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR HOW LARGE ANY

SUCH AWARD SHOULD BE

The basic difficulty confronting a jury deliberating on a request

for punitive damages is the absence of any ascertainable standards

by which to impose punishment or set an example. Judges

imposing fines on criminal defendants are limited by strict statu-

tory directions. In contrast, California juries must mete out

punishment to civil defendants based solely on abstractions.

The first level of this abstraction is found in the statute which

provides the primary authority for the imposition of punitive

damages. California Civil Code section 3294(a) provides:

In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from

contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression,

fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual

damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and

by way of punishing the defendant. .

On its face, this statute provides no guidelines by which a jury

may decide whether to award punitive damages other than the

requirement that the defendant must have been “guilty of oppres-

sion, fraud, or malice.” But these “requirements” mean little: the

California Supreme Court has held that no matter how clear the

> These statistics are summarized for the Court’s convenience in

Appendix A.4.

evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice, a plaintiff is never

“entitled” to recover such damages:

The granting or withholding of the award of punitive dam-

ages is wholly within the control of the jury, and may not

legally be influenced by any direction of the court that in any

case a plaintiff is entitled to them. Upon the clearest proof of

malice in fact, it is still the exclusive province of the jury to

say whether or not punitive damages shall be awarded. A

plaintiff is entitled to such damages only after the jury, in the

exercise of its untrammeled discretion, has made the award.

Brewer v. Second P »ptist Church of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.2d 791,

801, 197 P.2d 713 (1948) (emphasis added.).

Nor is the jury given any effective standards by which to

determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded once it

has decided to award them. In Neal v. Farmers Insurance

Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980

(1978), the California Supreme Court set forth three criteria for

determining the proper size of a punitive damage award: (1) the

nature and reprehensibility of the defendant’s acts, (2) the

amount of compensatory damages awarded, and (3) the wealth of

the particular defendant. /d. at 928, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 399, 582

P.2d at 990. These criteria have since been incorporated into the

standard instruction given to all California juries in punitive

damage cases.‘ See BAJI, California Jury Instructions, Civil,

* The standard punitive damages instruction reads as follows:

PUNITIVE DAMAGES—RECOVERY OF AND MEASURE

If you find that plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result of

the conduct of the defendant on which you base a finding of

liability, you may then consider whether you should award punitive

damages against the defendant, for the sake of example and by way

of punishment. You may in your discretion award such damages, if,

but only if, you find by a preponderance of the evidence that said

defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice in the conduct

on which you base your finding of liability.

“Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to

Cause injury to the plaintiff or carried on by the defendant with a

conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.

14.71 (6th Ed. 1984). But other than these extremely vague (and

completely subjective) standards, the jury is given no guidance by

which to determine the size of a given award. The result must

necessarily be inconsistent and potentially discriminatory puniiive

damage awards. A process more likely to violate basic substantive

and procedural fairness can hardly be imagined.

While it is obviously impossible to demonstrate statistically

how juries apply the “reprehensibility” requirement, one interme-

diate appellate court in California did undertake to analyze the

“wealth” and “relationship” data in 16 punitive damage verdicts

in business and insurance cases which have been reviewed on

appeal. See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., 155

Cal.App.3d 381, 393-96, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1984). That analysis,

which appeared as an appendix to the court’s opinion, is attached

to this brief as Appendix B. It demonstrates not only the Deviin

court’s conclusion that there is no “single formula for calculating

punitive damages” [id. at 388]; it also makes plain that the

“Oppression” means subjecting a person to cruel and unjust

hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or con-

cealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the

intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person

of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

The law provides no fixed standards as to the amount of such

Punitive damages, but leaves the amount to the jury’s sound

discretion, exercised without passion or prejudice.

In arriving at any award of punitive damages, you are to consider

the following:

(1) The reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant,

(2) The amount of punitive damages which will have a deterrent

effect on the defendant in the light of defendant's financial

condition,

(3) That the punitive damages must bear a reasonable relation

to the actual damages.

If you find that plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive

damages against defendant, you shall state the amount of punitive

damages separately in your verdict.

BAJI, California Jury Instructions, Civil, 14.71 (6th Ed. 1984).

alleged criteria set out in Nea/ do not even provide a framework

within which that calculation can be made.

As to the wealth criterion, the juries whose verdicts are re-

flected in Appendix B awarded punitive damages representing as

little as 0.33% of defendant's net worth, or as much as 50%. There

has been no higher degree of consistency in the relationship

between compensatory and punitive damages: the cases listed in

Appendix B show that even after consideration by the appellate

courts the ratios range between 1.1:1 and 2000:1 (or more

recently 190.5:1).

The thoughtful appellate judge who authored the Deviin opin-

ion has described well the difficulties faced by juries in attempting

to impose punitive damages under the vague guidelines of Cali-

fornia law:

The process through which a fact finder finds punitive

damages is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, the

court or jury must be sufficiently disturbed to conclude the

defendant must be punished. On the other hand, although

outraged, the fact finder cannot be vindictive. The channel-

ing of just the correct quantum of bile to reach the correct

level of punitive damages is, to put it mildly, an unscientific

process complicated by personality differences. Conduct

which one person may view as outrageous another may

accept without feeling, depending on such diverse character-

istics as an individual’s background, temperament and socie-

tal concerns. The process is further complicated by the lack

of objective criteria from either the Legislature or the courts

as to ‘how much’ is necessary to punish and deter.

Id. at 388, 202 Cal.Rptr. at 208. And although the Deviin court

concluded that “that is properly so” [id. at 388, 202 Cal.Rptr. at

209], the enormous awards rendered in the last few months are

frightening reaffirmations of the degree to which the California

judicial system has lost control of punitive damages.

It is true that the opportunity exists through a motion for new

trial or an appeal to correct runaway jury verdicts. Cal. Code. Civ.

Proc. § 657; Cunningham v. Simpson, 1 Cal.3d 301, 308, 81

Cal.Rptr. 855, 461 P.2d 39 (1969). Appendix B reflects that in 6

out of the 16 California cases listed by the Devlin court the

punitive damage award was reduced or reversed as excessive at

the trial court or appellate level. But this judicial control comes at

a high price. Not only must the defendant incur additional

attorneys’ fees and expenses to challenge these punitive awards at

the trial and appellate levels, but the defendant must post a bond

of at least one-and-a-half times the amount of the award in order

to obtain a stay of execution on appeal. Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

§ 917.1(b).°

THE COURTS HAVE GREATLY EXPANDED THE SITUA-

TIONS IN WHICH PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE

AWARDED

The lack of procedural safeguards demonstrated above gains

particular significance in view of several developments in Califor-

nia which have increased by geometric proportions the situations

in which punitive damages may be awarded.

For nearly 100 years after California’s punitive damage statute

was enacted in 1872, punitive damage awards in California weve

limited to traditional tort cases; further limited to cases involving

intentional torts; and even further limited to those cases in which

the defendant had exhibited “malice,” “oppression,” or “fraud.”

While those statutory limitations remain intact, three important

developments in California law have robbed them of any mean-

ingful limiting effect.

A. California Courts Have Created a New Cause of Action for

Tortious Breach of Contract

As early as 1958 the California Supreme Court stated that

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an

insurance contract “sounds in both contract and tort.” Comunale

* In the case involving the $125,000,000 award, the defendants have

been unable to post the required bond to obtain a stay of the judgment

and have petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of supersedeas.

California Court of Appeal, Ist Dist. No. A031998.

v. Traders & General Insurance Co., 50 Cal.2d 654, 328 P.2d 198

(1958). However, that concept of tortious breach of contract did

not deyelop momentum or begin to impact the award of punitive

damages until 1973 when, in Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9

Cal.3d 566, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032 (1973), the

California Supreme Court held that this tort could be the basis of

a direct action by the owner of an insurance policy against his or

her insurer. Thus, notwithstanding the prohibition of punitive

damages in cases “arising from contract,” insureds suing their

insurers for “tortious breach” of their insurance contracts were

allowed to recover such damages. Fletcher v. Western National

Life Insurance Co., \0 Cal.App.3d 376, 89 Cal.Rptr. 78 (1970);

see, e.g., Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2| Cal.3d 910, 148

Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980 (1978); Egan v. Mutual of Omaha

Insurance Co., 24 Cal.3d 809, 157 Cal.Rptr. 482, 598 P.2d 452

(1979), cert. denied and appeal dism'd, 445 U.S. 912 (1980).

The development of the tort of “bad faith” breach of an insurance

contract has itself accounted for much of the increase in the

number of punitive damage awards during the lasi decade.

B. The Definition of Malice Has Been Di'uted

The definition of “malice” in California for purposes of assess-

ing punitive damages was formerly “malice in fact.” Davis v.

Hearst, 160 Cal. 143, 162, 116 P. 530 (1911). Thus, in order to

recover punitive damages, a plaintiff had to prove that defendant

had an intent to “vex, harass, annoy, or injure,” since “evil motive

is the controlling and essential factor which justifies such an

award....” /d. at 162, 116 P. at 539. This definition was

accepted in most California decisions involving punitive damages.

See, e.g., Gombos v. Ashe, 158 Cal.App.2d 517, 527, 322 P.2d 933

(1958); Roth v. Shell Oil Co., 185 Cal.App.2d 676, 682, 8

Cal.Rptr. 514 (1960); Ebaugh v. Rabkin, 22 Cal.App.3d 891,

894-95, 99 Cal.Rptr. 706 (1972).

This stringent definition of “malice” was radically altered about

ten years ago when the California Supreme Court shifted from a

standard requiring that the defendant have intended to injure to

one requiring merely that the defendant have acted “with a

conscious disregard of plaintiffs rights” [Silberg v. California

Life Insurance Co., 11 Cal.3d 452, 462, 113 Cal.Rptr. 711, 521

P.2d 1103 (1974) Jor with a “conscious disregard of the safety of

others.” Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890, 157 Cal.Rptr.

693, 598 P.2d 854 (1979). This standard is now codified in the

California Civil Code. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). This

change has allowed for the award of punitive damages in cases

which had previously been considered to involve mere negligence

or breach of contract. See, e.g., Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119

Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1981) [product liability];

Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., 95 Cal.App.3d 279,

157 Cal.Rptr. 32 (1979) [slip-and-fall]; Commercial Cotton Co.,

Inc. v. United California Bank, 163 Cal.App.3d 511, 209

Cal.Rptr. 551 (1985) [breach of bank deposit agreement].

C. Tortious Breach of Contract Has Been Expanded To Com-

mercial Contracts

The most recent development which promises to spur the

award of punitive damages even further has been the expansion of

tort remedies, and hence punitive damages, to a variety of new

situations.

For example, from its initial restriction to insurance cases, the

tort of bad faith spread to employment contracts, Cleary v.

American Airlines, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168 Cal.Rptr. 722

(1980); banking contracts, Commercial Cotton Co., Inc. v. United

California Bank, supra; and leases, Schweiso v. Williams, 150

Cal.App.3d 883, 198 Cal.Rptr. 238 (1984). Last year, the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court held that a party to any contract who both

breaches that contract in bad faith and denies the existence of the

contract without probable cause may be liable in tort and, upon a

showing of malice, oppression, or fraud, may be required to pay

punitive damages. Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Stan-

dard Oil of California, 36 Cal.3d 752, 206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 686

P.2d 1158 (1984). Subsequent cases have held that the mere

breach of a commercial contract which arises in circumstances

suggestive of fiduciary relationships, public interest, or adhesion

will also give rise to a tort remedy. Wallis v. Superior Court, 160

Cal.App.3d 1109, 207 Cal.Rptr. 123 (1984) [breach of contract

to pay retirement benefits]; Commercial Cotton Co., Inc. vy.

United California Bank, supra {breach of contract for mainte-

nance of a checking account].

At the trial court level, courts seem increasingly willing to allow

the issue of punitive damages to go to the jury even in cases

involving disputes between sophisticated business people arising

out of purely commercial transactions. See, e.g., Jewell v. Bank of

America, Sonoma County Superior Court, No. 112-439 ($26.7

million punitive damage award); Micro/Vest v. Computerland

Corp., Alameda County Superior Court, No. 545-255-4 ($125

million).°

*Computerland’s motion for a new trial based, inter alia, on the

impropriety of the punitive damages award and the excessiveness of that

award was denied in its entirety on June 3, 1985. If upheld on appeal,

that award will be more than 30 times greater than the next highest

award ever upheld by a California appellate court. See Hasson v. Ford

Motor Co., 32 Cal.3d 388, 185 Cal.Rptr. 654, 650 P.2d 1171 (1984)

($4,000,000 punitive damages award affirmed).

CONCLUSION

The parties and other amici will adequately brief the constitu-

tional issues raised by this case. The sole intent of ACIC and

CSAA has been to give more concrete focus to the Court's

examination of the punitive damages question by supplying statis-

tics on punitive awards from the jurisdiction in which they are

most widespread and extreme. The statistics leave no serious

question that punitive damages verdicts against civil defendants in

California are the equivalent of excessive fines, imposed inconsis-

tently and without discernible standards. As the traditional im-

pediments to the awards of such damages continue to be eroded,

the unbridled discretion of juries to award such damages will have

an even greater impact on the business transactions of society.

For these reasons, amici urge the Court to assume jurisdiction

of this case and to reverse the judgment of the Alabama Supreme

Court.

Respectfully submitted,

ROGERS, JOSEPH, O'DONNELL & QUINN

JOSEPH W. ROGERS, Jr.

MARTIN QUINN

SUSAN M. Popik

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Association of California Insurance

Companies and California State

Automobile Association

Inter-Insurance Bureau

A.1-1

Appendix

Case Name

Schleicher v. Bishop, San D

Court, No. 465-951 .........

Alexander v. Hartley Const

County Superior Court, No. 77

Chmielowski v. Narkin, Santa

Court, No. 540-875 .........

Richardson v. Tysch, Los Ang

Court, No. C318-855........

DLS Sawknn ae ered nena dos

Sobonja v. Dyl, Los Angeles C

Pek HPO 4 ds vkowndee cin

Shergate v. Lincoln Beach M

County Superior Court, No. 35.

Mermit v. Dillon, San Mateo C.

Tg Rarer ere

Berger v. Los Angeles Dodgers

Superior Court, No. C390-930 |

Quessenberry v. Jaoui, Los Ans

Court, No. C413-180.........

Moscan International v. City Fre

les County Superior Court Nos.

ES bal Os ed he

Pepper v. Guy F. Atkinson Co

Superior Court, No. 278-421...

Geis v. Smith, San Francisco C

No. 793-043 ................,

Weidmann v. Sadin, San Die

Court, No. 503-958 ..........

Jewell v. Harris, Los Angeles C.

4. oe

Yarber v. City of Inglewood,

Superior Court, No. SWC 4925.

4.1

go County Superior

ction Co., Ventura

i ie

ee@escoaoeaeeeaeseeceeeae s

tht Lines, Los Ange-

304-090, C323-276,

SS2ervseeeaceeeeuasee

eevee eeoeee ee eee ees

SOQ PCuesenpewewuseneed ee

See e8 8668048 8 6 8 @ 6.4

Punitive

Damage

Award

$40,000

$20,000

$30,000

$90,000

$2,500

Date

1984

i984

1984

A.1-2

Case Name

Crawford Corp. v. Azer, Los Angeles County Superior

Se ek GI cons eececesetcunnduvewns

O’Banion v. Beckford, Napa County Superior Court,

DME cubs . .conbtacesReabancdsnSaeearceses

Caldwell v. State of California, Ventura County Supe-

i i Ce Cee ley acenkeeeeenanas

Wilding v. Otteson, Alameda County Superior Court,

Pe TL. ci cesauheeeeeussauen deat adees

Gore v. Bache-Halsey, Stuart Shields, Inc., San Fran-

cisco County Superior Court, No. 799-141 .........

Weaver v. Hurless, Orange County Superior Court,

Se I, Cancdtabestccsercekuuuenuuaene Kee

Gatturna v. Visintin, Orange County Superior Court,

Se I cs ac bs 554 0s caknens Doedee cas uksens

Von Leden v. A.E. Harter, Inc., Yolo County Superior

SN CE dan udicsecdusuedddecssueneanbe

Mercogliano v. Mututal Benefit Life Ins. Co., San

Francisco County Superior Court, No. 784-046 .....

Crocker National Bank v. Scott, Contra Costa County

Superior Court (No. unknown) ..................

Clausen v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Santa

Clara County Superior Court, No. 442-217 ........

Santos v. Anchor Fishing Co., U.S.D.C., San Diego,

PGE ch ievuduvedenence ta cnhadsnaeeves

Eisenman v. San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union,

San Diego County Superior Court, No. 469-832 ....

Silva v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County

Superior Court, No. C900-933 ................0..

Olson v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., San Diego

County Superior Court, No. 464-040..............

Pearlman v. GTE Directories Corp., U.S.D.C., Los

es IE ans ob 3 59 645s 00d 6000000

Rosita K. v. National Investment Development Corp.,

San Francisco County Superior Court, No. 796-365

Luna v. Rasmussen, Los Angeles County Superior

es, ee, CI 6 ce 6c dkkheeeuceuss so baus er

Punitive

Damage

Award

$8,025

$1,005

$75,000

$12,500

$2,500

$25,000

$41,045

$50,000

$90,000

$25,000

$10,000

$35,000

$25,000

$8,200

$30,000

$50,000

Date

1984

A.1-3

Case Name

Hurst v. Scheef, Los Angeles County Superior Court,

PE I ne actu ne a

Allen v. Steward Krask & Co., Los Angeles County

Superior Court, No. SCC 6073 ..................

Schiavone v. Matzley, Santa Clara County Superior

a eeu

Jenkins v. Russell, Los Angeles County Superior

Ay WU SII ovis vc ceccccdesvccecsusicc

Badiyan v. Ashurian, Los Angeles County Superior

err eee

DeAngelis v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles

County Superior Court, No. EAC 27654 ..........

Genis v. Schine, Los Angeles County Superior Court,

SET ET eT ora ea

Thompson v. Mercury Ins. Group, Los Angeles

County Superior Court, No. C271-758 ............

Bresler v. Congress, San Mateo County Superior

ls MN MI wins 600 doh kos 00d cdbeeasd cca

Quill v. Ryan, Orange County Superior Court, No. 34-

PE dawns iW bes cedeee eres peddeuae aus as

Cosgrove v. Anderson, Lake County Superior Court,

RRR ERE prey nee er oa

Phipps v. Valley Nat'l Bank, Los Angeles County

Superior Court, No. C300-420 ...................

Piper v. Driver, Alameda County Superior Court, No.

a EOP ee ae WeddOE PEL Dine buibeskks

Keller v. Placerville Exercise-Spa Center, E] Dorado

County Superior Court, No. 41863 ...............

Haber v. Beverly Regency Townhomes, Los Angeles

County Superior Court, No. C301-051 ............

Duca v. Sentinel Mortgage & Loan Co., Santa Clara

County Superior Court, No. 510-037..............

Alves v. Taylor, Fresno County Superior Court, No,

I Ss cei eedaibes ecco et cdc peticuvene:

Hill v. Sadhu, San Francisco County Superior Court,

ela aoe

Punitive

Damage

Award

Date

1984

1983

A.1-4

Case Name

Savage v. Bank of America, San Francisco County

Superior Court, No. 782-170.....................

Engell v. M.G. West Co., San Francisco County

Superior Court, No. 749-957. ....................

Kelly v. Taylor, Alameda County Superior Court, No.

PE dis Svehad ob eede ceusneves cued scaess

EET 50460 5.05. 40.000'0<0000040n01sseeeee

ST Sate kek awes buekaceetod

Bertuch v. Northrop Corp., Los Angeles County Supe-

rior Court, No. SWC 62827 .....

The Cove, Inc. v. Mora, Los Angeles County Superior

Court, No. C293-089 ..........

Medrano v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles®C ounty

Superior Court, No. C214-517 |...

Marshall v. Hansen, Los Angeles County Superior

Court, No. C283-677 ................

Bonham v. Pyramid Construction Co., Los Angeles

County Superior Court, No. C286-500 ............

Castaneda v. Michaels, Yolo County Superior Court,

P06 6454450. hbase taba Ghee bibceckent

Lopes v. Morello, Santa Clara County Superior Court,

ET EE: heb vewe hase hers Coen ar bewhete eek

Marks v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., San Fran-

cisco County Superior Court, No. 78976...........

Ball v. Posey, San Francisco County Superior Court,

I Ey ibys tals cote esa gh cn Cele tg. |

Light v. Witman Ranch, San Diego County Superior

EE Ce SEES once hue etbevasindsedeace ec,

Doucette v. Yoakum, Napa County Superior Court,

NY oo vbw he cmeeu Ree eddie os <sse ce ca

DY 56% (-uhne 4 bees bbe Cee ae as kc&e occ dc

OG iS aH 5s Oe Eh eae SRESEE NG FEE Laie eck cw 0k

Punitive

Damage

Award

$9,200

$67,000

$10,000

$25,000

$5,000

$50,000

$65,000

$2,000

$1,000

$15,000

$4,000

$1,500

$75,000

$40,000

Date

1983

A.1-5

Case Name

Swartz v. Sequoia Insurance Co., San Mateo County

Superior Court, No. 263-477. .... . eta cteckes

Hill v. Winston, Los Angeles County Superior Court,

ae ee ee uae nee ws

Russell v. Barker Security Services, El] Dorado County

Superior Court, No. 39240 ......................

Kendall v. Dashnaw, Santa Clara County Superior

I os cov aveutwensesssueeccauaa

Bowen v. McKay, San Luis Obispo County Superior

Re I IED gn vice wevssncecocececce

Curran v. Lemos, Alameda County Superior Court,

Se I oe £0450 eddvessiceedidedess nnd fats

Stroup v. Shepard, E] Dorado County Superior Court,

ies cca ccudvieswadso'sbee6ooe<

Gallaher v. Bank of America, San Mateo County

Superior Court, Nos. 267-843, 270-072............

Terodec, Ltd. v. Onyx Systems, Inc., Santa Clara

County Superior Court, No. 508-434..............

Harmelink v. Breaux, San Francisco County Superior

SG BA SRT Sy OSES Ny eee

UE RANGNS Ses dhG Sue db 6 ed-du dice venseare see's

Marks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Contra Costa County

Superior Court, No. 197-710. ...............0052.

Bystrzycki v. Bystrzycki, Los Angeles County Superior

Ss BON WO GUID ove ccccceccacececsesvcs

Verdugo v. Galvan, Los Angeles County Superior

EE a a

Turick v. Satori, Los Angeles County Superior Court,

Powell v. Southiand Colleges, Los Angeles County

Superior Court, No. C257-411 ...................

Greenberg v. Alan Baker Co., San Mateo County

Superior Court, No. 253-091.....................

Stone v. Nelson, Alameda County Superior Court, No.

CTS cele ea on are oan walwene

Punitive

Damage

Award

$48,000

$50,000

$2,500

$25,000

$22,000

$85,000

$5,000

$20,000

$60,000

$28,000

$1,500

$15,000

$4,000

Date

1983

A.1-6

Punitive

Damage

Case Name Award

Seamount v. Maiz, U.S.D.C., Los Angeles, 81-577-

SPT reer errr rire wre ee ey ee er $25,000

Linville v. Waller, Santa Clara County Superior Court,

RE tes Pu rhs acre 8G ok Fe eae $5,000

Stanton v. Nessim, Los Angeles County Superior

Ce, BG GOO ov vce ciecccdececctcessenves $10,000

Peterson v. Snell, Sacramento _— Superior Court,

EP at ia cds ccaca cc aene semen 4 kawean $25,000

Goodson v. Endy, Los Angeles County Superior Court,

Se Wy ME 6.6.0.5 o-6.0rs, 104 4uK 6s eleaeseetcacen’ $1,000

Robles v. Sandoval, Yolo County Superior Court, No.

RS rr Te ew PPP Pr rrr rT eT ee ay fer $1,000

‘POPS JUNOWIP O}

parme dsatpund jo snpyiuas dase OF posse ypureyd ssajyun sapnl peu Aq payursa sem jeu) mau JO] UOTOW yey) SaytUaIC 4

SJUPPUJOp [je IsuIRde soMrwep jo pueme sesIwusIy ,

pauap

lUrpPUdrprp-ssoso, yrureyd

AQ jPul Mou JOj UOHOW

{(umouy jy) Ruy MAN 404

UOIPOFY SuImMOpOY parny

aarpuny jo uoirsodsiqy

OOO OSTS

OOS RLS

jurrydwios

-Sso1o

uo COL 09S

000°001$

aanund

peursi)

OOO STTS

vonrunuts |

[Nyauol A

pnrsy

‘(qua Aojdury) e2UO0 >

OOO LTS

quiepdwos

-Ssolod

uo OO I$

OO0'ORS

_Sasewerg

aopesuadwo )

wV XIGNAddv

jO yorasg

pnrs4

aeqoy

aourunsuy

aouadyaany Lsaiawa >

ase) jo vdky

TRE-FIE

ON ‘UNO > souddNS

{uno >) omwawesors

“o> Anuwapuy

jrursnpuy a Aqny

6FS-clED

ON “UPO> souadngs

{yunoy saauy so]

‘ypauryp 4 prutoury

cld-StfD

ON “Uno souadns

Ayuno > saasuy soy

‘28pupyy A

oO) ‘SUy pry URrNeYyurY

L-LRL-PRS ON “UNOD

souadng Ajuno > epowryiy

‘ASI -) PPUOWW AP

asuUnS A UIT,

WEA SB)

SROl

SR6I

SRO

pays pur payeoddr

‘PAUP PUT Mau JOR FOTO

PAUap PUL MIU JOY UOHOpy

{(umouy fy) [HUT HAN 204

BOHOW Jurmojyo4y purwy

asian jo worpsodsiqy

OOO PTS

0000S $

0O00'00LS

000'00L$

MOO 9LTS

000001

_Sateweg

aarpuny

Loses

OOO OSTS

0000S I$

0000S 1$

OOO'S IS

LOLTES

Saseueg

Asopesuadwo )

arkcyduuy jo

uorstasadng woatysay

‘Caneg 3? ynessy

yey peg 2oursnsuy

yey peg 2ursnsuy

vorPurtsd |

INjauols AY

pnriy

eIS|y pray

ase) jo dy

67-1f-1f ON “URED

souadng Ayuno >

adursg “Qn W4

ysroosa ay A Adaypor

MA-19TZ-LRAD ON

. saqpaguy so} aSN

“OD “SUE AE] 1.uaH

NgHOQUUO ) “A dUUTY

trL-61t) ON “UROD

sourdng Ayuno y sajaauy

Soy “yes1Ag UMP

‘A SOUP SaNhores

R66°TOR ON

‘uno souadng Ajuno >)

oostIours4 URS “Ye D

Jo ssoa_y ang 4 sayings

R90-PL1 ON

‘uno souadng

Ayuno) uinbrog urs

“auy ‘Aauuag Df A ys

1€7-£7Z ON

“uno >) souadng

Aquno ) FIso) PIO D

“‘ypassoy “A adsouon

PRol

rRol

SR6l

SR6I

TWEN 258.)

6° 19T-R6T ON

‘uno y souadng Ano >

ousaa4 “0 Anuwopuy

OOO'SLIS PST'LOS yey peg aourunsuy jPUISApUT A ZING FREI

IL1-S9F ON

‘uno +) souadng

wonouU Ayuno) rary) rues

ve duyns or soud paynas OOL'P6TS 69L OS Ang) Gaetonpry jo yoraag “WSEINA “A MOHWOD PRE!

9F9-E£Sb ON

‘uno sourdng Ano >

rary eiurg “doy

pnesy “yey prg perossuWwo> SU0IIIa 4 OAYO] A

aa OOO'PETS 0O0'ROFS “(uORNQUISIG)) IeZIUOD Jo Yorag IMNSHIY Ysey aof UES FREI

ci : £99-£67 ON

< yur peg peiosawiwo > ‘uno y sourdng Aiunoy

“Aing Asrionpry jo yoroig ‘(asray oqwswrsNS ‘uaangd Ling

PAUAp ELT MOU JOY HONOpy 000° 00C$ STL'PRIS asiyours4) eso) JO YoOrRaug jeuonrusauy A YOoUS FREI

fore OAS

‘ON “UNO> sourdag

Awno) sxa3uy so}

OSL'RRTS 000'LL7$ vourwryag “Yug “A SEM PROT

61049 IMS ON

‘uno >) souadng

Aquno.y sajaauy soy

000°0S 9$ 000'ST7ES WNessy jeNxIg ‘Tyst]y A 20Q FRG!

{(umouy J1) UL HAN 204 oSademecy sodemecy ase) jo adky aM ISH) RC

BONO Furmoyoy parwy anand Ksoprsusduo )

aarung jo wornsodsi(] feuidug)

POHAP FEUD Mau JOY HORRY

PAUP JPUT Mou JOP UOHORY

Paap FUT MoU JO UOROYY

{(umouy ny IMU MAR 104

WONOTY TmMoyO4 paray

MIU JO BOINsSodsiy

OOOOSLS

000°00S$

000001

oo00'0s ¢

000°00T$

OSL OFS

000 07S

Lit 6s

000 90P$

OOO LITS

OOO'OOTS

tatgenedun. »

AuUaTYFan_y swopy FursunA

way asyry

yey prg “ien

“Uo ) Aouaty yRs2ua jo Yyoroig

pansy

ainsodx | sosaqsy

yuey prg aourunsuy

asm) jo adky

Cif-6c1 ON “UNO )

souadng Ano y riuouos

‘sasudiaiuy proipayy

wiaisamy «a Ariqueg

O9ELL OMN ON “UNO

sourdng Awno y sajaduy

SO] “SUONG WNODSIG]

UrW-Y 4 uruuayoy

‘uno y sourdng Ajuno >

Ppawryy “O) suzy ary

rimsopyey “A Aouady

62619 OMS ON “UNOD

souadng Aunoy sajaauy

SO] “Uayosuayy A WAWS

‘ON “UNO > soOUadNS

CLOE-T1E ON “UROD

PR6I

S"RO9-TLS ON

‘suy xodninW FREI

rRel

1LO-178

Ano) oostours4

urg ‘saursnpuy

UPWARY A SHIM FREI

sourdng Ajuno >»

ousai4 “O.) ‘Suy

pau) A URW FREI

TWEN SED 1eC]

PMwap [ELT Mau JOP OKO,

{(umouy jy) [ey MAN 404

UOHOW IurMOYJO4 premy

aatUng Jo Worsodsi(

OOO'SLIS

000091

OOO'STSS

OOOTIIS

000'007$

OT T6T$

-sodemegy

aang

jruitug)

OOO LETS

OOO'SES

OOO'SLS

000°00T$

OSO'OSS

pnrig

aonoridjrypy aesayoug yoos

yey preg rourunsuy

YOHNIASOIg SNOIIE YW

Aunfuy pruosiag

jorsw0

JO Yoraig ‘wsuriaryg ‘pnes4

ase) yo adh;

REGREd ON

‘uno y souadnas

Ayuno) rr) riluRS

‘unnog A nowy

ttTitd ON

‘uno y sourdns

Ayunoy

rrp murs ‘uoNnEy

‘AA A Uaesng

LLT-6RTD ON

‘uno y souradng (uno >

syrduy soy “OD ‘suy

Asma) Yigg A s9ysty

ROFTE

‘ON “UNO sousdng

Aluno ) aprss9aryy

SUR A YSIO A

RIR-ESE

‘ON “UNO sourdng

Awuno) o8a1q urs

‘uOSApopy “A QuARY

L81-66L ON

‘uno y souadns

Ayunoy oosioursy urs

*p2oosof “A ssOUDIUY

uoO) PsequNg

PRoI

FRO!

PRO!

MURA ase)

ae)

POUIP FRU MoU JOY UOHOY,

WUEPUapAp Aq pass

“SIP [PUD mou JOP HOO;

PAUP PRUP Mau JO] vOHOW

PAUap pr. MIU JOY HONOP

{(umouy yy) py Man 404

HOHOW TuMoHO4 paray

aang jo uornsodsiqy

OOO'STIS

0OU'00T$

OOO TIS

OOO'SLIS

OOO'STIS

OOOOLES

esadeueg

oun

pram)

OOO'SS$

ORO'SES

OOO'ESS

TLS'SLIS

OOO'STIS

000'9L$

.Sotruing

Aropnsuaduo )

SSAUISICY [PUONIOLU] JO

VOL YUP PLUONUaUY “I9y asTRy

aarjurapy

aanoadsoig YM a2uUdaIaIDIUY

adriurapy danoadsoig Yim

aouaapa Uy ‘UONNAdWO > sIeFUE]

VOHINIASOIg SNOW

aindsiqy diysuauurg

Aovsidsuo >

ase) jo adky

LOU-897.) ON “UNO

souadng Ano >

syoduy soy ‘jo

yng vodiry A suapurs

O-TLL-L67 “ON “UNOD

souadng Aquno.) ousas4

“O-) Furyrg rurssoy “A

Asayeg youasy anbsrg

910-917

ON ‘UNO ) soOUDdNS

Awunoy) orp ues

‘UNY “A YOSSI

99PF9IS

‘ON ‘UNO > soUDdNS

Aqunoy rrp) miurs

‘SuIJO.) A MOHTIH

IRE-S67D

ON ‘UNO>D Jouadng

Ayunoy saafuy soy “o>

aouRINSSy ary panup

ssoyurg “a dnuaan

STR-697 ON

‘uno y souadng Awno>y

ODE) UES “SUE “INED

JO SUIPOIN “A JDAR IN

MUWEN Se)

FRO!

PRO

FRO!

FROI

PRO!

Poop RUT MoU JOP UOTOY,

pAuap pr Mau JOP UO

apruw

JOU FEUD MOU JOY UOHOYW

L(umouy jy) [ey MAN 404

WOH}OFY FurMojo4 parny

aan Jo wornsodsiqy

TOO'OOLS

OOO'OTIS

OPT 99IF

O00'00rS

O0'00TS

000°001$

Sader]

aun

jeurais(

of res

000'OrT$

IRT'OLIS

OOO'OrS

OOO'STIS

O91'b6$

sosewmeg

Asopesuadwo )

RE EO RE lee ee OT ETRE EEE, YI PENS TRIER Ste oF eR EERE RT EPS me

pnriy

*(9iPISy ROY) eso) JO Yoraig

VOHPUNUD | pNyFuo AY

}>qry ‘uonnadwoy pnyFuols Ay

‘spun4 Aurdwo jo uorssaau0 >

yuow

-Aoydury ut voneunuuosiq, peony

aonordjeyy jeipayy

pnes4

‘(a1eisy jeay) 1l9PsWOD Jo YoRag

ase) yo adky

O-REb- 167 ON “UNOD

souadng Ayuno >

ousas4 “OD ISNoOY

“MEA apr a Adssey

Lit €6c

‘ON “UNO >) soUddNS

Awuno > owwawrsors “o>

‘Sup WUR4y-yr > A UR

SES-fECD ON

‘uno_y souadngs

Awinoy sayaauy soy

‘UIC A Funosyep

‘SUP UIDISAAA PIU)

1PR-E0L ON

‘uno sourdng Ajunoy

sarduy soy pur

Asnwoduop A sauog

9OT-ESE

‘ON “UNO souradng

Awuno ) adumg

‘yPurg 4 yeu,

9ES-RIT

‘ON “UNO Jouadns

Awunoy risoy FsUOD

‘sayRg “A SHARG

PRO!

FRol

PRol

PRO!

rR6l

PRO!

WEN ase)

ae]

ee ~emere-

apru

JOU FELD MIU JOP UOTLOPy

apru

1OU JPUT Mau LOY ONO,

} o¥pal jeu Aq Qoo'ORESs 01

pronpas saariurp aapung

}(emouy JL) [LL MAN 304

UONHOY, Julmoyo4 paray

aarHuA Jo WoInsodsi(y

000'OO1$

00000 1$

000°001$

0OO'OS I$

000001

OOS TheS

Sader

aang

jeuisu()

OOF 9S$

OPE RES

OOO'OIE I$

OOR' 17S

OOS'SSIS

OOO'OS ES

-Sadeung

Asopesuadwmo )

aarjurapy

Danoadsosg YM aouasayaIUY]

(S991AI9S

‘SIONPOIg) PIO D JO Yoraig

fduiug yuug

yey peg soursnsuy

yey prg aoursnsuy

Uanrg zw ynessy

(umouyun on)

uno) sourdng

Auno ) oURJOS ‘rouaWYy

jo yurg «4 ofurg

STO-RRL ON “UNOD

souadng Ayunoy oosioues4

urs “OD UrO] F

Kousodag pjor) “a ‘uy

“UOSUPHSHY ) WF URWIDIO>)

0491 ddOT ON “NOD

sourdng Ano) apisuaary

‘PAV 4 Pay

LES-tcb

‘ON “UNO > Jouadng

Ayunoy rary) runs

“OD durINssy

sepy a Aqysnoyt A

62060 DAS ON ‘uNOD

souadng Ano» sajaduy

SOT “OD ‘sup ayry

LIEN PUPIPI A OST AK

CEROR OMN ON ‘UNOD

sousdng Ajuno>

sqyasuy soy “doy

WUaWISdAUT WuNsIDadS

‘A PpayusyH

WEN 2S")

FROol

PROl

PRO!

rR6l

< ‘poysnes puouapnal copra

1OU FELD MOU JOY HOKLOW,

‘pouap yeu Mau Joy UONOY,

4(umouy jj) [Hy MAK 404

UOHHOF Buymoyo4 parmy

aarUng jo uorNsodsiqy

OOO'SLIS

000'00r$

000° 001$

LRTILS

0O0'O8T$

000° LO9$

000'SLS

SOR'LSIS

.Sageweg

Asopesuadwo )

pars “iorsquoy jo yorag

vonrwrsag

dumug yuug

wwowAoidwy ui yey prg

aindsiq) 19es1U0 >

ase) jo adky

S-F96-ERT ON

‘uno y Jouadng Awnoy

ousal4 ‘uaisaqg

ISAAMA-ITV “A 197009

168-197 ON

‘uno y sourdng Ayuno >

Oar UPS ‘maady Arg

YOOW JIPH A Sdauig

F SUIYSHQNY Iptsisro+)

£S9-161 ON

‘uno > souadns

Ayuno) snejsiuris

- “‘wpuryoy (A ya

OPT-REL ON

‘unoy sousdng Ajuno >

oosioursy urg “dio >

j214y99g A pRauedy

975-605 ON ‘UNOD

souadng Ayuno>y uel >

nurs ‘siarg A saury

PRO!

PRol

FRO!

PR6I

WEN ase)

aed

A.2-10

[PUD MoU Jo, HorOU

vo FuyNs OF soud papnag

soar

“UEP SarUnd OF se poyuNa

[PUD MIU JOP UOHOY,

4 a%pnf jeu Aq oo'osTg 01

paonpas sadrwuep samung

PAIUN JO WONSOdsICy

OOOO 1$

OOO'OS LS

0000S I$

0000S L$

000 OOPS

OOO'ORES

Sadnwmecy

JArHUn

rus

OOO'OLTE

OOO'O0S$

OOP’ 76S

000 00E$

OOO'ShS

£76'6$

.Sodnmeg

Gomrsuadwo »)

vonrwrsag

Aupqer | 1onporg

loesuO) asiyouray jo yorarg

{oraug JO vorsrauy

yuey peg soursnsuy

yey peg soursnsuy

ase > jo adi

LOO-EEED ON “UNO

souadng Aiuno y sayjafuy

SO] “O.) auoydajay

jrsauary a Ayoy

€9L-OL7.) ON

‘uno ) sourdng Ajuno >

saprauy soy “ouy

‘aurKoy dyiyg (4 ssrpH

FOR-IST)D

‘ON “UNO JouddNS

Ano) sariuy soy

“MOMIDN) JIMIS| Ray

{,Wuy A saMaQuoyurs 4

GEE-RRZI ON “NOD

sourdng Ajuno >

sqyaduy soy pry

‘wyyadng “a ppry

6TL-OFL

ON ‘UNO Jourdng

Ano) o8a1q urs

‘UPId Yyeapy vonepunoy

JOSIP A URAHING

989-667 ON

‘uno ) souadng

Aiuno.) owuawrsors

“OD ‘SUE ar] peninyy

aytorg A saduisheg

MUWEA ase)

{86

ERG!

£R61

ERG!

ER6I

A.2-11

PAUP JPL MoU JOP LOOPY

poysnes juauipnl

‘PAMvap [PUD Mau JOP UOHLOW,

{(umouy jy) HUY MAN) 104

BOW ZuMoyoO4 parwy

aarpung jo worsodsiqy

OOO'STIE

OOO'RELS

OOO'STTS

OOO'OS I$

OOO'STS

OO RERS

OOO'OS$

000 9LES

OG F9IF

osodmure(y

Asoyesuadwo )

Yue prg aoursnsuy

Ang) Asrionpry jo yorag

1OPIIUO) YIM 2UDIayIIUY

pnesy ‘aindsiq) sapjoyaurys

WAWUSSHIEPY “SSQuISiGy FEUONOUIY

ase) jo ody,

9IR-9LT) ON

‘uno _) souadng

Ayunoy

sqypaaquy soy “o> ‘suy

OILS A Japrosyos

Ayunoy) saprauy soy

“dio uonriay urwpoy

FP urwpoy a dausan

‘uno y sourdng Ajuno>

“SHUOIIOGE] FOUDATIYL

‘A Duy ‘dnossy s sug

‘uno y souradng Ajuno >

oprsog [4 “uasuas0g A

Ayuno.) rary murs

tR6l

RLISS OMS ON

‘uno ) sousdng

ER61

CTR“ LOP ON

rr) riurg “uy

tR6l

RTITE ON

OD AVNL OPPIIAYS — ERGI

RRSTRd ON

‘uno y souadng

‘SUID A SUNJOD ERG!

SWE IE) FIC]

a Ue a

apru

OU JEU MOU JOF HOHLOPY

{(umouy jy) PRUE Man 404

UOHHOW Aumoyo4 parwy

aaHUA Jo Uorsodsiq

STS 'OLES

000° 00T$

000'00L$

0000S 1$

000°001$

186'09$

000'000'T$

RO1'LEO'ES

000°071$

OOO TEIS

TSPERS

aakoydy Aq yryy

Dy doyswrg

Ampqrry 1onposg Sumug yung

yey peg soursnsuy

press “(aeisy pray

JO AES-IaseI]) lWesuoy jo yoraig

SSAJISIC] FuUOHOLWy *(uOTPUTUT

4a] SSUISNG) 1l9RsJWWOD JO YoOrIIg

ase) jo adky

ORI-RIL “SSI-99L “SON

‘uno > souadng

Aquno ) oostours 4

urg “o> ydrsdaja)

‘Sig URQUOWY A uUry

€7S$9T DAS ON

‘uno ) soUddNg

Awunoy sajaauy soy

‘PSMOUGN) FY, “A OATIG

£SS-OPL ON

‘uno > sourdng

Awuno ) oostours4

urs ‘ezirdsy a swepy

£79 ON “UNO souddNg

Awuno> ouopy “o> ‘suy

JP19UIH) A Uy “Dossy

SJ9UMGE FISIA YloWwWryy

6TL-LRT ON

“UR > sourdns

Ayuno) owwawrsors

“YHwg “A QeMYyoS

If E9TD

‘ON “UNO Jouadng

Ayunoy saa98uy soy

‘ofr >) xaupurs

‘A ORD sry rursuowy

ER61

£R61

ERG

£R61

ERG

A.2-13

PIUAP [HUD Mau JOY UONOPY

‘pons

pauap jPUy Mou JOY UONOW,

PaUap [eur Mau JO} UONOW

4(umowy jf) [PUY MAN 404

BONO BuymoqJo4 paray

aatung JO woInsodsicy

OOO'LOSS

000 OrTS

000°00S$

000'00T$

OOO'ESIS

69° 199$

preig sansa

sonoradjeyy [Popa

Aupqery 1onposg

pnes4 ‘(uoneyeisuy

pur uadisag) 1esuoD jo yorag

pnrsy

ase) yo adky

(umouyun

ON) Pur] PiuRS

“JASN “wy “ursuswy

ay A ruryryry

19T-RIL

‘ON “UNO Jouadng

Auno >) oosiours4 urs

‘sppury A 18,

ELE-LETD ON “UROD

sourdng Ajunoy sajaauy

SOT “OD 29qQNY F tp

aUOISIuIy A UOSUIQoY

6b0-6ST) ON

‘uno sourdng Ayuno>

sajaduy 30°] “uy “o>

Fuworpuoy sty “A

‘Spig OnFYS STP 4NOY4

RS-TR-RZ ON

‘uno sousdng Ano >

Burg ‘suonsnposg

ISIIBIG “A weYWIYS

£R61

£861

ER6I

£861

A.2-14

potuop [PUL MOU JO] UOrLOW

opru

1OU FEUD mou JOy UOROW

[(waouy j1) 1) MN 304

NOHO, Jurmoyo4 parny

aAIHUAY JO BOIpsodsicy

OOO'STIS

000°006$

000'O77$

000°001$

-Sadewmecy

SAtUns

jeurdi()

OOO'SLS

000'00C$

000°96$

009 Et$

.Sademeg

Asopesuadwo )

UOHPUPOIC

yey peg 2oursnsuy

fing Gronpry jo yoraig

yey peg 2oursnsuy

ast_) jo adhy

6SEL2 OMN ON

‘uno sourdnag Ano >

syoauy soy “o> ¥

yoOnqgroy “surag “A yoo)

rSi-ftr ON

‘uno souaddng Ajuno>

rpowryy “o> Anuwapuy

jeAoy “A tuioury

99R-TLED ON

‘uno sousdng Awno >

sayoduy soy ‘sparyory

‘WH “974919

uPWw2iNg A sqqo}4

ORL-10€

ON “UND sousdns

Ayuno) owwowrsorg

“OD SU] SID}DATIY

ayy A Armory

WEN, aS")

£R61

ER6I

£R6I

A.3-1

‘pares junowr 0}

paeme sarund jo snp putas ydaooe 0} parade yureyd ssajun adpnf jeu Aq pajuesd sem peu) Mau JOJ UOTOW Jey) SayIUsIC 4

‘SlURpUrJap [je IsuINse sodewep jo pueme djRFuddy ,

P-SST-SPS ON

‘uno) sourdng Ano >

( xoudde ) epaueyy “dio pur}

PUP JEU) Mau Joy UOHOW 000'000'STIS 000'00S'b$ SPUSPIAIG] JO VOISIZAUO) “JPINAUIOD “A ISIA/OIMW CRGI

ROR-SLE ON “AOD Jou

-adng Ajuno wry) ewRS

powra pnrsy ‘(uon “ouy “So1u0219949

PLD MIU JOP UOKLOWY 000° 00S 9F$ 000°000°L$ -Pquasaiday ) 19esUOD Jo Yorag JAN 4 UNE SR6I

. 9IS-S8PD ON “UROD

sourdng Ajuno >

sxaduy soy “0D

Ayuwopuy uriprur >

o 000'000'SES RLI'R67'S$ yey prg 2ursnsuy ‘A PIT ‘Ly Arp urs CRoI

‘ 6ft-Zil

‘ON “UNO JousdNS

Ayuno) ewoU0s ‘rouewy

000°00L'9T$ 000'000'07$ yey peg jeiosswWw0 >) jo qurg 4 (PM7F = SRSI

}(umouy J) [HL MAN 404 osodewnc osadeurecy ase) yo adky IWR ISH FEC)

wOHOW, Jurmoyo4 paemy aarund Ksoresuadwo )

aarung Jo wornsodsyc| jemy3ugy

€°V XIGNAddV

PAUP [PUT MoU JOY UOHOY,

$ >apnf run Aq OOT ISTE O

poronpar sadruurp aanung

A.3-2

} oapet

eur Aq QOO'OOO' TE OF

poonpas sirup oatiungd

4 (umouy py) phy Man 404

BONOW JumoyoO4y psray

aatuag jo wornsodsiqy

000°000'1$

OOS*LOO'TS

00007 7S

OOS 'Z00'S$

000°000'01$

000°000'°07$

Satewey

aarnund

1eusuG

000'097T$

000'ST$

ISOTRIS

OOO'LEIS

000°000'01$

096 F9'6IS

Ksoyesusdwo. )

vonewryag

pnrsy sounsag

prrs4 ‘(uon

-INSISUO_)) 1DRIIUOD JO Yorarg

aariueapy

aanadsoig Yim 29uasIIIUY

vorrurua | jnyBuos Ay

Aupqer | tonpoig

ase) jo adky

1RELT OTN

ON “UNO souadns

Awno ) sapaauy soy

“por jo youny y

IPIMPLO AM A JIENOW

)-9/t0-£8 ON ‘OF URS

“IGsn ‘yus ¥Y

sUUD4 *29I9%1g “YoUAT

‘Wu2y; 4 weg

£16"L7E) ON

‘uno > souadng

Ano sa98uy soy

“dio) uaspnuy a funo,

TI-RR-6E ON

‘uno ) sousdag

Awnoy 298umg “o>

HO 14s 4 Apursey

I8S-000VD ON “UnOD

sourdng Ajuno >

syrduy so] “OD

SUL HPS (A Y8noyN DOW

tSL-99L

ON ‘UNO > sourdng

Aquno_) oosioues4 urg

“Quy “PRAr}ag PoueWwYy

-sursy A PHWORYE >

JO D0SSY SIAMOIN 2>1y

FRo!

SR6I

SR6l

S86!

S861

SR6I

A.3-3

PAUAP FUT Mau JOY UOTOW

PAwop jPRuD Mou JO} VOTO:

} oapnl

mt Aq Bo REO OIE OF

poonpas sadmurp samiung

pPawap jruy mou soy UNOW,

+ %pnl jeun Aq OOO'OSTS 1

poonpas sadruurp saniung

4(umouy jy) [Ry MAK s04

BOHHOW Jurmoyoy parny

JATHUN JO worsodsiqy

0OO'O0E r$

000'000'E$

000°0S 1S

000°000'7$

OOVETIS

162 OL7'E$

09S I$

000'SEIS

_saagewed

(umouyun oN) NOD

souadng Awno>

risrys “doy

Awpqery 1onpoig daar DWY 4 urWisng

SL9-L9b ON

‘uno >) sourdng Ajuno>

J9qr] ‘uonrunusay jnyduos my

yey preg soursnsuy

ofaiq urs “dio

MEW Pry A yemiry

CSt-6tb

ON “UNO Jourdng

Ano rary murs

“oossy ‘sup urwoany

BV AMO, A Yury

19S-8Lb)D

ON ‘UNOD Jouadng

Ayuno> saja8uy soy

YOHINDISOIg SMOLIN RY “Aysuiyony ‘a Aysuryon 1

LSL-RIED ‘ORR-FIED “SON

‘unoD souadng Ajuno>

sajaauy so} “o> wow

pnrsy aeisyq pray “ISDAUT YDOMETY “A NOYRG

ase) 0 adky

PRO!

rR6!

PRO!

FRO

WEN IS8_)

A.3-4

PAuap pry MIU JOP UONOY,

PAwop [ELD Mou JOP UOTLOY,

| (umowy jf) [hE MAN 404

UOT}OYY Julmoyoy paray

aatpunyg jo uorprsodsiq

000°LOO'T$

MH OOS TS

000°000'r$

000°000'7$

.Sadewey

aang

eurdugy

Ost 16$

CLP OL IS

OOO'ILSS

oSadmmecy

Asoyesuadwo )

yey peg soursnsuy

yey preg soursnsuy

yey peg sursnsuy

yey preg sourunsuy

ase) yo adky

10-9L-1f

‘ON “UNO Jouadns

Ayunoy ofume9

‘MUR RIS “A YouTIES

‘uno> sourdng Ajunoy

rary) murs “oO ‘suy

jryuounuo ) “A slang

Awunoy saqaauy soy

paediuyy A uonysnry

‘ON ‘UNO JouddNg

Awno) sajaauy soy

‘uUry WS A JOYATL

pro!

ORR-LTS “ON

tR6l

ISt-S91D ON

‘uno ) sourdng

“o> ‘sup emia

PRO!

St9-00f)D

PRI

due ase) ae

A.3-5

Paw yp jLUT Mau JOP UOHOW

‘pauap pRUy MIU JOY UOHOW

4 (umouy Jp) TP MAN 104

wOHHOY Sumojjo4 Panay

aang Jo uorsodsigy

0O00'STO'OFS

000'000'S$

000°000'S$

000°000'r$

000'00S "ES

-Sadeweg

aarnung

jeuidug

000°00S $

69L'ETIS

000°00S $

bo0'907$

ooo'n9e7s

-sodemeg

Asoyrsuadwo )

yey peg sourunsuy

yung preg soursnsuy

yey preg soursnsuy

yey peg aoursnsuy

ainsodx4 Ary-x

ase) jo adky

£66°6ST) ON

‘uno souedng Ajuno >

sqaduy soy “OD ‘sul

‘uno souadnag Ajuno >

syatuy soy “OD sul

Ayensey OND A SOSSY

uro'} 3 sduirg Aaumog

‘unoy sousdng Ano»

oa ‘A191905

aqriinby 4 wrjoulg

‘uno> sourdng Ajunoy)

rely murs “OD ‘suy

Ayuno> wary) murs

“dio J949ig “A THEY

DIEISHY “A SMOUI4 FRET

1L8°797D ON

PRO!

PIR-FOE ON

aouPINSsy at]

tR6!

OL1-16F ON

uOISsIy “A J91SKOY FREI

R6f-brr ON

‘uno souadns

£861

JUIEN ase) FRC]

A.3-6

PRUIP [PUD Mau JOY UENO;

J (umouy j1) Ita) MIN) 104

HONOW Bumoyoy parwy

OMEN, JO UONNSOdsiG

000°000' I$

000'00S" I$

OOO'PRS I$

000°008'1$

0:00'000' I$

OST OSb'RE

oSPaRwme(]

oarung

wuysuq

OOO'SSLE$

000117

ERS'SIZ'7S

OLR O9RS

C9T'ETS

OOS 9TRE

2Sadruecy

Asoyesuaduio )

pnesy

Aupqery] ionposg

YOHPUIUA | [NyFuOl A

ansodx:| sorsaqsy

IsMay JO Yoraig

pnesy rivisy pray

ase.) yo adky

ILd-t6f)D

ON “UNO Jourdng

Awunoy sayaduy so]

‘wOpsEN, A OquIa]

RELT-ERD ON ‘OOstOURIY

urs ‘ 2asn “dios

‘duius0>) mod A WIS

6EI-CIE

ON “UNO > souadng

Awnoy owawriors

“SINAJIG pRIguRULYy

Ss9]PACI | “A SAY

O-9EE-605 ON

‘UNO >) sourddng Awno>

epawery “dio> purog

“MGA A SI

ORT -OPL

‘ON “UNO Jouadng

Awuno) oosiours4

urg ‘yurg ofe4

SPM “A dwiny

€1I-79Z7D ON ‘UND

souadng Ayuno> saja8uy

SO] "OD s9yuRg

PMP.) A Baquaay

WEN ase)

ERG

PRO!

PR6I

PR6!

ae]

A.3-7

PAUAP FEUD Mau JOY UOKOPy

Paap PRU Mau 40Oy UOROY,

PAUapP [EUD Mau JOY UOLOW

4(Umouy jy) [HUY MAK 404

UOHHOW Buymoyjo4 paemy

PATA JO UOINSOdsIC

were ’ idee ee ee

OOO SLOTS

000'00S I$

6LP PsO'els

000°000'S 1$

000°000'1$

.sodemegy

aanung

jeurdiy)

.o~e mere

000°00S$

OST'RLT$

1€7'6S9$

66S E£9'7$

000'00r$

.Sodemeg

Asoprsuaduso )

pnesy

‘eso jwawodwy jo yorag

yuey peg souransuy

pnrsy dununossy

‘Aing Aurtonpry jo yorag

yuey prg soursnsuy

ase.) yo adky

£OF-£67) ON

‘uno >) JouadNg Ayuno>

sapauy soy “pry

“dsoy [Uy ODOLWIO4 “A

muy SOUQRY HWS

PRE-OF ID

‘ON “UNO soUDdNS

Awunoy saafuy soy

“ouy “panug

WIMISIAM WII) “A Fun,

9LR-RETD ON “NOD

souadng Ayunoy sajatuy

SO] OD ‘sup aunty

YOIUT] [PUOHIEN “A yuog

(umouyun oN)

uno) sourdng

Ano) sajaduy

so} “dio> uoireg

‘A saurdwo> Py yy

9907L “ON

‘uno Jouaddng Ajuno>

zns-y) riurS “o> ‘suy

Aang w? Ayense> eunrry

‘A UBISIG: poom aANRAID

ERG

ER6I

CRG!

ERI

E861

OWEN) aS8)

A.3-8

‘PoUap pry MAU JOP UONLOW,

yeoddr vo powuyye podpat

poonpas sadruep dsaniung

suo)

“EU, FO ANAS UO Paseg

jeadde uo uayours foadpnt

er Aq QOO'OOO'TS O1

poonpas saaruep samung

4(umouy jj) [Uy MAN 404

BONO, SUIMO[jO, PArKy

aan Jo UOISodsiqy

000°000'O1$

000°000'7$

000°000'S$

000°000'T$

000°000'R$

-sodnungy

oan

praitug)

O00'00S$

OOO'LEOS

000'001$

0OO'RIS

WOO'TIIS

-Sademecy

Auoyesuadwo )

Ayiqery 1onpoig

yey peg soursnsuy

SIyaUog

aoursnsuy Auag o1 Aorsidsuo >

(2ouanyuy anpusy) Isao ITA

yey peg doursnsuy

ast) jo adky

RRI-S9F ON

‘uno y sourdng Ayuno

rary) murs “uy

‘sIONpog VOSUYOT

WP uosuyor “A WINK

61E-E9L

ON “UNO JoUddNS

Awuno> oosioursy urs

“0. Anuwapuy

SIMIATIY “A SOG

OOO-RITI ON

‘uno sourdng Ajuno>

syofuy soy “ouy

‘xeyinby a andruds

| Lr9itd

‘Libitd SON “UNO )

souadng Ayunoy rr»)

riurg “ouy ‘wrysy

tweuy “A J9d94S

1L6-€£7) ON “UNOD

souadng Awnoy saaauy

SOT “OD ‘SUy ar]

urnodosay (A J91z704

tR6l

£R6l

£R6I

£861

ERG

WEN ase)

aed

Appendix A.4

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Average Punitive Damage Verdict:

All verdicts:

UGA Ginié eae dho buvah 646eciee Oneuk en $ 951,596

he CAN nn a Ret pepe 943,589

a ee 10,542,354

Top 15 verdicts:

DL Muah ehdd <av chee ou ue eedes ceuaien $ 4,232,832

a ee eS Ss 5,877,683

Sige bvk agdlus Ve audueuumanideecdelael 18,235,680(2)

Largest awards as a percentage of all punitive awards:

Awagds of $1,000,000 or more:

PREIS A het Shia SR TE Deen gL eae 15%

I ROGERS Re Sire ae i a 18%

TR ata a 35%

Awards of $10,000,000 or more:

ashe RE PEt aa ee ee ees 4%

IN ire Salis a aula COCs cle oe oe ie ee el nt 0.9%

RIE Pe Ape a as ee eR gee oP Peed 2 St Oe 23%

(1) The 26 cases from 1985.are those reported in Jury Verdicts

Weekly through the July 5, 1985 edition, which includes cases for about

the first quarter, and five recent verdicts reported in newspapers but not

yet in Jury verdicts Weekly.

(2) Eliminating the highest award ($125,000,000), this figure be-

comes $10,609,657 for the next 14 highest verdicts.

Appendix B

qwosut qwosul 7

you skep 19 you skep 19 _

S128 Sias awoour you sAep 1°9 99% PEddy"1e>

%1L00 %L00 Siasse WU EEE O

Sjasse sjasse we 6 ee

eu &EE O ou SEL O

s als oa

-s200g $8 176 Pz ddy jeD

‘ eiep eiep a : S97 (8961)

17 9Lb yeom ON aoa ujeom ON pars Biep YyPI™ ON | OUD OOSS |OSO'IS pouauy fo “oy “su

comune panuy) “A aaquayiay,

oo. awosut (o00' Ors

you sA you sh :

tn tose» | OF Pammus | awoour you shep 5°71 tiz'ees'rg | 0000s 016 PEIED

1 O) pL ssos8 | tee LA . “24 SQAINU | = Sjasse ssoud Y%7°() ynoqy vey | 17 (8161) 28unyory

ome 0 po 0 -Ng ssoyun) siasse 1ou ¥EL 0 ‘| 2201 ON | ‘Sus SsauuIDy “A joa

my a aon powesy

wu Se 0 eu %SEO

- fb PEO Cl

ep wep , tediiee

port pou y powsG IEP YNLIM ON | OUO'STIS |ES6'ESSS (PLO) Leap posauan

YQiyFom OWN yyeomn ON :

jouonvyy A Osauiag

: eiep rep : 191 PZ TED SE (OS61)

18 000 ¢ yyeam ON pou yyram ON pomed eiep YEOM ON | 0007S '$ uvyyv] “A Asuuly

sadeweq wepuajaq | (sadeweg wepurj9qg voHOW | wepusog jo yyeom | sadewed | sodewrg ase .) :

Asoyesusd | = go YeaAQ | 24) UOTSID| «=o eam | JRUL MON 0} sadeweq, 2A aatnung Asoves

WO) OF sade} oF sadewed | -3q NOD] oF sodeweG | vo BuyNy | -tung jo diysuoNe}>y jeurduc | -usdwoy

weg sAUnY aamung | seyoddy| samung jo | nod jeuy

jo oney yeur4| jo drysuon diysuoneay

| Oe Pe

B-2

(000° 0S7$

yuom ae yuiom

PU SST) ony ons | HSI yuom IU % SI won Ish Pe ddy ye 19

rast JO SSIIXD UT ‘-$20xq Se JO SS29X2 Ul poweq JO $S29XK9 Uf yuu 67 SZETLIS | (LL61) OD ‘sup afrT

sjosse - syasse SIISSB IU YER Hl , supsaadnig “A aur]

OU BBP hana 10U BER PI

oantund

DANS (000°0OS$

-S2oxy se a 01 pow 18> Pe ddy 18D 99

- P2Ss9A2y 1ou YP ~34 SOA yUuom WU %76H7TE | OOO'SLIS | THE SS (9161) s401I0=— VT

sodeweg %v6 -Ng ssoyun) jumMOTUMOG ‘A UDpUYT

aanmund powey

DAISSIOXY

SB PISsoA

-2y sode § Pe ddy jeD

mM ve “weg aan quom : . ‘ 6S (9161)

ung pue | yu yL'I¢ posed qUom PU SITE | OOO OOSS | $67 L97$ 0) ‘su 20 ® afr]

Asoves psvpunis “A Oa

-usdwo)

awoour 2wosut

A A

pet pap ray awoout 9u Skep Ol 9%6 Pedy fe

1oe9 10 %BL'7 POV | ow %8L'7 powsg | qMO0dU! PU BBL 7 000'0S7$ | COO'OrS =| rh (S161) 9D PA4D

i “Ad

yuom quom quom Pu £e9'0 [roiay *A s7m20y

yu S19 0 pu £t9 0

Asovesuad | jo yyeaay | 24) vost | go Pwo | feUL MON 0} sodeweg 2an aanrung Asoves

WO) 01 S23e | on sadewec |-2q WAED | o} s2deweG | vo BuyMy | -uNg jo diysuonEay | jeulTUG | -usdwoD

-wecy Jamun aammung | aeyeddy | aanung jo junoD peuL

jo oney jeuig | jo diysuon diysuone|>y

“BP a eu

quom yuom

. . — pst pe ddy je>

you yu Om au , ,

1g oe | Pou =" auon| “Pcs ou yy | 000°09S | OOB'IZS 8z1 (z861)

rg ssasduiaig a Kaafpor

“St 12U %9 se }2u %9

Aseyes Aseyes

syuow syjuow As 878 Pe ddy jeD

180 gt Mogy] pouwyy £ mogy peus) | -8es syuow ¢ INOgy | GOO'9IS | OOO'O7S Ell (OR6I)

yuom yom yYUom PU XO! Iprusy A 42uIOYIS

eu %Ol wu S01

(%8I (%81 , , :

Loot mato 9) pomyy| “ew 2) we RS Enea) Br hen ‘or ‘con on

se — ao wes -sedd ‘Sug anyy A 42qph

wu BETZ 1U %E-Z Vv 1 77g 4 4710

178 Pe ddy fe

ap) 001 (6261)

BO Lor ov gce'o] P™™BY) rouyceo] Pau] —Huom 124 ¥58'9 | OD'OKS | ONZ'sS uy ‘svomquasig

400 faja8uy so7

uMOUMOg “A wOpoYz

pou y

ms nesso| % siasse me re aed

. . ga 3 ‘ ‘

1 O9SZ pe poonpoy "aeeuee MONT ssosd % 1 UeWp $827] OOO'SIZS | BTELIS muy ‘saneodwo7

sodeweg poudis “A 424f0A

Auows

-uadwo)

Asoyesusd| «= go yryea~y] = 94) UorsID| «= jo Pam] fRUL MON oF sodeweg 20n aammung Asoves

Wo) 0) sade} oF sadeweg) -2q UND] Oo sadeweg) vo Bunny] -1ung jo diysuonesey peurssig | -usdwoy

-weg 2amuny samung) aeyaddy | aauung jo} unoD jeuy

jo oney yeury] jo deysuon diysuone|2y

“PP a Puls }

I arr cee _______...... vv ceppmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

B-4

| suo

——7

“ul jou (S32) “ut jou

SYM we] Aru SYIOM PE

a S}as “ye jo S)9s

Po cees “se ssoud pueme ~se ssoud pomed

%STO} Pessaary) %S70

spasse pou y Slosse

mu BT E PU ETE

(0000S 1$ ao, | *2aund

WO DUT oO) pow 000°0SL$

“ut jou

au SYIImM ¢ “os $83] | we ore Asoves

Loe MUO UI -UN) dats yr $ -uaduw >

4 %79'6) -S9oNg se] %R0'Ry | 000'0SS

yuom POSI2AIy ~<a o

PU BLES} sodeweg | Ms paunury

aatung %S8 87 soteweg

sodeweg | wepuajaq (sodeweg | wepusjocy uonoW

Asowesuad | = yo yea] 24) VOISID | JO Yeo | peuy Man

“Wo) oF sade | oF sadeweg] -3q NOD | OF sadmweg | vo duyny

“Wwe samUnY aammung) aeyoddy | samung jo} une yeuy

jo oney yeurg |] yo drysuon diysuonejay

“PPa leur

— = — ———

—_————_—_—_—__4____ —

209

Ul JIU SYIOM p ¢

Siasse ssoud 4 o7 9

Slasse jou y7'¢

aw.)

“Ul Ju syWUOW Cy

2wosu! Uw EE ER

Yuom ju %OC

WEPUDJ IC] JO YYPIM

Oo sadeweg aan

“tung jo diysuonejay

vor

wu ¢ 7s

vou

mm eis

~—_—_-_- _—_

aammung

jeurdug

019 pe ddy je»

Ost (PRED)

000 O€$ OD ‘su afr] pannus)

UDILIWY A 2100

[ee Gee EEE

166 Pt ddy je> prt

O00'OOES | (E861) 2u7 ‘sauinbug

JOVOUDAY A Nauing

sodeweg | 38RD

Asoves

-usdwo)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.