# Amicus Curiae Brief — Aetna Life Insurance v. Lavoie

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0327%3A17

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1986
- **Citation:** 475 U.S. 813

## 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

I]

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

le
[*)
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.

2

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

3

expanded the availability of punitive damages to situations in
which they have traditionally been foreclosed.

DISCUSSION
I

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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).

8

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

9

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.

10

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

1]

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].

12

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).

13

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.

\

ee

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

a

Punitive
Damage
Award

$40,000

$20,000

$30,000

$90,000

$2,500

Date
1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

i984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

1984

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

1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984

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

1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983

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

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
a)

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 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
‘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
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!

FRO!

PRO!

PRO!

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!

PRO!

ae

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!

PRO!

rR6l

2

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!

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!

PRO!

FRO

WEN IS8_)

ae

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

os

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!

PRO!

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

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)

eg

A.3-8

‘PoUap pry MAU JOP UONLOW,

yeoddr vo powuyye podpat

win Aq QOO;OOO TE ©
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
I

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
1 1 5°06! se ssox8 | powsyy| -se ssosd powag | ssse ssost 10:0 | 0000S [0501S | prrssuy fe on ony
%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)
yd
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
soteweq | wepuagjeg | (sofeweg | wepusjog vonoy | wEpusseg jo TeeM | soTeweg | sedeweg FD
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)
sadeweg| wepusjsg) (seseweg| wepuajoq uonOW | wepusseg jo yee | «sofewedg | sodeueg se)
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

20
“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 ~ prt
O00'OOES | (E861) 2u7 ‘sauinbug
JOVOUDAY A Nauing
sodeweg | 38RD
Asoves
-usdwo)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0327%3A17. Public record. Not legal advice.