Amicus Curiae Brief — Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip

Supreme Gourt, U.S,

| RIL ED

; | UNL

No. 89-1279 Ff. SPANIOL, JQ

JOSEPH CLERK

In The S eee

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1989

sa

4

PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

vs.

CLEOPATRA HASLIP, CYNTHIA CRAIG,

ALMA M. CALHOUN, and EDDIE HARGROVE,

Respondents.

a

4

On Writ Of Certiorari To The

Supreme Court Of Alabama

sa.

4

BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR

CALIFORNIA TORT REFORM AS AMICUS

CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

a.

vv

Frep J. HiestaNpD Extus J. Horvitz

1121 L Street *S. THomas Topp

Suite 100 Horvitz & Levy

Sacramento, California 15760 Ventura Boulevard

95814 18th Floor

(916) 448-5100 Encino, California 91436

(818) 995-0800

Attorneys for

The Association for California Tort Reform

*Counsel of Record

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

4

th ee ad i

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I oad ctbesccncndsreuscscceunss iii

Interest OF Amicus Cusine. .......cccccccccsccccces 1

I Ge CII occ scccccccccccccceveccece 1

RII oka Sob te sede redssoesevedencercecccesces 2

I. In Most States, Punitive Damages Are Private

Fines Without Statutorily-Defined Limits ...... 2

II. California Juries Routinely Render Large Puni-

tive Damage Awards ..............0eeeeeeeee 3

III. California Trial Judges Grant New Trial Motions

Or Remit Punitive Damage Verdicts In A High

I ST Is cud caeneesasewsnecenvces: 6

IV. Like Most States, California Has No Meaningful

Standards To Guide A Jury In Determining The

Amount Of A Punitive Award ................ 8

A. California Juries Are Told To Consider

Three Factors: (1) The Reprehensibility Of

The Defendant’s Conduct, (2) The Defen-

dant’s Financial Condition, And (3) The Ac-

tual Damage Suffered By The Plaintiff.... 8

B. “Reprehensibility” Provides No Meaningful

CD OP FR PI cc reccccccsccvecevcvens 10

e

The Defendant’s Financial Condition Provides

No Guidance In Those Cases Where A Well-

Defined Standard Is The Most...... 10

D. A Defendant’s Fi

Irrelevant, If Not Unconstitutional, Consid-

eration In Determining The Amount Of A

Pe csi beuesnescebesicssbeennrevesiens 12

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

E. Consideration Of The Actual Damages Suf-

fered By The Plaintiff Has Not Proven To Be

A Meaningful Criterion

V. California’s Unfortunate Ex erience Poin

ts Th

Way For The Rest Of The Nation :

VI. The Time Has Come To Invoke Due Process To

Force State Legislatures To Do Their ere 17

Conclusion

ili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.3d 688, 201

Cal. Rptr. 528 (1964)............cceeccececcccceees 14

Carr v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 152

Cal.App.3d 881, 199 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1984).......... 13

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

155 Cal.App.3d 381, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1984)...... 15

Downey Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ohio Casualty

Ins. Co., 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 234 Cal.Rptr. 835

dae gee scccvseccsccccccsccseces 14

Dumas v. Stocker, 213 Cal.App.3d 1262, 262

er ee eee 10

Fenlon v. Brock, 216 Cal.App.3d 1174, 265

Cal. Rotr. 324 (1989).........cccccccceccccsvcceceee 10

Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co., 211

Cal.App.3d 1598, 260 Cal.Rptr. 305 (1989)...9, 13, 15

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)...... 2

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966). ere 10

Goshgarian v. George, 161 Cal.App.3d 1214, 208

EE sacs pecccscccsecsccscccscccees 11

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).... 17

Hammond v. Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1986) .... 16

International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Foust, 442

EE ES EE 2, 13

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

362 P2d 316 (1977) ne Cal Rpt. 635,

“Gee "389, 582 Pad “980 rr 078). chee ies

ee ee

"eh eee

Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

California Book of Approved Jury Instructi

No. 14.71 (1989 Revision) J ee

2 Ghiardi & Kircher, Punitive Damages Law -

Practice § 21.01 at 2 (1989) ' —_

Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies (1973) ...

Ellis, Fairness and Efficiency in the Law of Puniti

i v

Damages, 56 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (1982) , :

Jury Verdicts Weekly, Inc., Jury Verdicts Weekly ...

Morris, Punitive Damages in Tort Cases, 44

Rev. 1173 (1931)... hosegten

Peterson, Sarma & Shanley, Punitive Damages: Em-

pirical Findings (RAND Corp., Instit mM

Justice, 1987) p., Institute for Civil

*“* #

'seecoeeeceeoeoec eo eso Oe esesee cee eeesee cs

.

Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th ed. 1984) ..

Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (West Supp. 1990)

Pee 2 282 ae O68 6 6 8 & 6 6 &

.

"SS @eeeeeecee eee ee ae 6 6 &

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Association for California Tort Reform (“ACTR”)

is dedicated to improving California’s civil liability sys-

tem in terms of fairness, efficiency, economy, uniformity,

and certainty. ACTR, which was organized twelve years

ago as a non-profit public benefit corporation, is the

oldest organization of its kind in the nation and presently

has more than one thousand members representing busi-

ness, the professions, local government, and individual

citizens.

Multi-million-dollar punitive damage jury verdicts,

verdicts that were rarely heard of as recently as twenty

years ago, have become commonplace in California. It

also has become commonplace for trial judges to inter-

vene to reduce juries’ excessive punitive verdicts. A civil

liability system based on trial by jury in which judges

grant remittiturs in a high percentage of cases is funda-

mentally flawed. ACTR’s members wish to present their

views to the Court concerning the urgent need for consti-

tutional scrutiny of punitive damages.

+

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

We describe the anomaly of punitive damages and

the serious problem that has resulted by presenting a

study of California punitive damage jury verdicts over

the 14-year period from January 1, 1976, through Decem-

ber 31, 1989. The study discloses that seven-figure puni-

tive damage jury verdicts have become routine, and trial

judges are finding it necessary to intervene and reduce

such verdicts in an unacceptably high percentage of

cases.

We also briefly discuss California law on determining

the size of punitive awards, which is similar to the law in

most states, including Alabama. It will be readily appar-

ent that existing law gives juries virtually unbridled dis-

cretion in setting the amount of punitive awards. This is

why verdicts are so often outlandish and why it is neces-

sary for trial judges to intervene with such frequency.

| Our conclusion: a defendant has a right to trial by a

jury operating under appropriate legal standards. Until

state legislatures do their job and set maximum limits for

punitive awards and establish meaningful criteria for

juries to use, punitive damages are per se a violation of

due process.

-%

4

ARGUMENT

I.

IN MOST STATES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE PRI-

VATE FINES WITHOUT §

hpi My TATUTORILY-DEFINED

Punitive damages serve the same function as criminal

penalties and are in effect private fines. International Bhd

of Elec. Workers v. Foust, 442 U.S. 42, 48 (1979); Gertz .

Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974); Rosenbloom .

Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 82 (1971) (Marshall, J., dis-

senting). Yet, unlike a fine in a criminal case, there is no

statutorily-defined maximum for punitive damages in

most states.

Until recent years, the failure of state legislatures to

set maximum limits for punitive damages and to estab-

lish meaningful criteria for juries to use in determining

punitive awards received little attention because “puni-

tive damage awards occurred infrequently; their size,

when they did occur, was relatively small; and, the cases

in which they occurred involved, by and large, some of

the most egregious forms of intentional torts.” 2 Ghiardi

& Kircher, Punitive Damages Law and Practice § 21.01 at 2

(1989). Now, however, all this has changed. A punitive

monster is growing on the civil side, and it has reached

enormous proportions

II.

CALIFORNIA JURIES ROUTINELY RENDER LARGE

PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS. :

Appendix A lists the punitive damage jury verdicts

for $100,000 or more rendered by California juries during

the 14-year period from January 1, 1976, through Decem-

ber 31, 1989.1 The following chart summarizes the ver-

dicts in these cases:

1 The source for the statistics is Jury Verdicts Weekly, Inc.,

Jury Verdicts Weekly, which compiles 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 Califor-

nia (it depends on trial attorneys to submit the results of their

cases), but it is recognized as an authoritative source of infor-

mation concerning jury verdicts. The RAND Corporation used

Jury Verdicts Weekly as the data base for a study of California

punitive damage jury verdicts during the period 1980-1984.

(Continued on following page)

No. $100,000+

Year Jury Verdicts Sum of Verdicts

1976 7 $ 7,525,138

1977 9 $ 13,656,000

1978 14 $137,193,0002

1979 12 $ 35,415,815

1980 20 $ 35,116,500

1981 29 $ 27,375,710

1982 32 $ 54,861,096

1983 39 $109,405,254

1984 68 $ 59,342,317

1985 77 $363,100,7393

1986 61 $105,894,292

1987 62 $202,852,818

1988 29 $280,427,9884

1989 48 $ 80,993,939

(Continued from previous page)

Peterson, Sarma & Shanley, Punitive Damages: Empirical Find-

ings 4 (RAND Corp., Institute for Civil Justice, 1987) [hereinaf-

ter cited as RAND study].

Whenever a jury rendered separate puritive awards

against multiple defendants in a single case, we added the

awards together.

* One verdict, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., accounts for

$125,000,000 of the total. Without Grimshaw, the total is

$12,193,000.

3 One verdict, Micro/Vest v. Computerland, accounts for

$125,000,000 of the total. Without Micro/Vest, the total is

$238,100,739.

4 One verdict, Baroway v. KMG Main Hurdman, accounts for

$147,000,000 of the total. Without Baroway, the total is

$133,427,988.

(Continued on following page)

These 507 jury verdicts total over $1.5 billion

($1,513,160,606)! During this 14-year period in California

there were 179 punitive damage jury verdicts of $1 million or

more, 54 of them $5 million or more, and 30 of them $10

million or more.

Figure 1 below depicts the number and sum of the

verdicts for each year of our study.

California Jury Verdicts over $100,000

$s 1976-1989 P

- 100

poof

350 - ‘ -

300 + -

250 + oan, - 60

200 + \ s | és

150 +

=" 20

50 + a 444 :

. seals -

Legend $ Million ~ # of Verdicts

Fig. 1. California Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

for $100,000 or More

(Continued from previous page)

Effective January 1, 1988, California’s punitive damage

statute was amended to require proof by clear and convincing

evidence and to better define the circumstances under which

punitive damages may be awarded. The amendment applied to

all cases tried after its effective date. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294

(West Supp. 1990). It appears to have had an immediate impact

on the number, but not the size, of punitive damage verdicts,

though a year iater, in 1989, the number of verdic's resurged.

Just the most recent 5 years of the 14-year period,

1985-1989, account for 55% of the verdicts (277 out of

507), 68% of the total amount awarded ($1,033,269,776 out

of $1,513,160,606), 57% of the awards over $1 million (102

out of 179), 69% of the awards over $5 million (37 out of

54), and 70% of the awards over $10 million (21 out of 30).

The RAND Corporation’s 1987 study of punitive

damages, the data base for which included California

punitive damage jury verdicts through 1984,5 concluded:

“The largest punitive damage a*.ards have increased

greatly in size, sharply increasin ; both the average award

and the total dollars awarded.” KAND study at ix. The

awards depicted in our study for the years following the

RAND study, from 1985 through 1989, show this ominous

trend continuing.

III.

CALIFORNIA TRIAL JUDGES GRANT NEW TRIAL

MOTIONS OR REMIT PUNITIVE DAMAGE VER-

DICTS IN A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF CASES.

The rulings of trial judges on new trial motions con-

firm that juries’ punitive damage verdicts are too often

excessive. Appendix B shows the results of the new trial

motions in the 179 cases included in Appendix A where

the jury’s punitive damage verdict was $1 million or

° The data for the RAND study covered all civil jury trials

in Cook County, Illinois, and San Francisco County, California,

from 1960 to 1984, and all civil jury trials throughout California

from 1980 to 1984. RAND study at v.

more. In 168 of the 179 cases the trial court ruled on a

new trial motion. A new trial was granted or the punitive

award was remitted in 77 cases, or 46% of the time. Of the

$1,402,016,994 total awarded by these 179 juries,

$631,233,486, or 45%, was eliminated by the trial judges.

Figure 2 below depicts the results of the new trial

motions.

Modified Punitive Damage Awards

New Trial Motions 1976-1989

New Trial Motions Granted or Amount Eliminated — $631

Verdicts Remitted — 77 “

New Trial Motions Denied—91 4-345 Let Stand — $771

Punitive Damage Cases $ Million

Fig. 2. Results of New Trial Motions for California

Punitive Damage Verdicts of $1,000,000 or More.

The mere fact that such a large percentage of punitive

d..mages is remitted demonstrates current jury procedures are

seriously and fundamentally flawed.

i iti dicts of $1

6 These 179 cases with punitive damage ver

million or more account for $1,402,016,994, or 93%, of the

$1,513,160,606 awarded by the juries in the 507 cases included

in our study.

What accounts for California’s punitive damage

mess?

IV.

LIKE MOST STATES, CALIFORNIA HAS NO M

, EAN-

INGFUL STANDARDS TO GUIDE A JURY IN DETER-

MINING THE AMOUNT OF A PUNITIVE AWARD.

A. California Juries Are Told To Consider Three Fac-

tors: (1) Reprehensibility Of The Defendant’s Con-

duct, (2) The Defendant’s Financial Condition, And

(3) The Actual Damage Suffered By The Plaintiff.

California Civil Code section 3294, the statutory au-

‘ , é ens

thorization for punitive damages, provides in pertinent

part:

“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation

not arising from contract, where it is proven by

clear and convincing evidence that the defen-

dant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or

malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual

damages, may recover damages for the sake of

—— and by way of punishing the defen-

ant.”

The statute goes on to define “malice,” “oppression,” and

“fraud,” and to define the circumstances under which an

employer may be found liable for punitive damages

based on the acts of an employee. What the statute does

not do is place any limit whatever on the amount of a

punitive damage award, nor does it specify any stan-

dards to govern a jury’s determination of the amount of a

punitive award-

The California Supreme Court has held that a puni-

tive award is excessive if “ ‘the entire record, when view-

ed most favorably to the judgment, indicates [the award

was] rendered as the result of passion and prejudice.’ ”

Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 21 Cal.3d 910, 927, 148 Cal.Rptr.

389, 582 P.2d 980 (1978). The three factors the California

Supreme Court says are relevant to this determination, id.

at 928, have been turned into a jury instruction, Califor-

nia Book of Approved Jury Instructions (BAJI) number

14.71 (1989 Revision). This instruction provides in perti-

nent part:

“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 dam-

ages, 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 defen-

dant in the light of defendant's financial condition.

“{(3) That the punitive damages must bear

a reasonable relation to the injury, harm, or dam-

age actually suffered by the plaintiff.)”” (Emphasis

added.)

Given the nature of the three factors a jury is told to

consider, it is hardly surprising that so many punitive

7 The “use note” to this jury instruction explains: “Para-

graph number 3 is in brackets and must be given if requested

by the defendant. Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co., 1989,

211 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1605, 260 Cal.Rptr. 305, 309.”

10

damage verdicts have to be remitted on the ground of

excessiveness.

B. “Reprehensibility” Provides No Meaningful Guid-

ance To A Jury.

The “reprehensibility” factor tells the jury little of

any use. See Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 404

(1966), where this Court referred to the term “reprehens-

ible conduct” as “loose and unlimiting.” The jury already

has considered the nature of the defendant’s conduct in

deciding whether to award punitive damages in the first

piace. Telling the jury to again consider “[t]he reprehen-

sibility of the conduct of the defendant” in deciding how

much to award adds little to the equation. This factor is

entirely subjective and does not serve to rein in the jury’s

discretion.

a The Defendant’s Financial Condition Provides No

Guidance In Those Cases Where A Well-Defined

Standard Is Needed The Most.

The “financial condition of the defendant” factor is

somewhat anomalous in that California’s appellate courts

do not agree on whether the plaintiff is even required to

present evidence of the defendant’s wealth in order to

sustain a punitive award. Compare Fenlon v. Brock, 216

Cal.App.3d 1174, 1178-83, 265 Cal.Rptr. 324 (1989) with

Dumas v. Stocker, 213 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1267-69, 262

Cal.Rptr. 311 (1989). When evidence of wealth is /pre-

sented, it may provide some guidance in setting an

11

amount sufficient to punish and deter when the defen-

dant is an individual of normal means or a small

business. But it becomes less and less meaningful as

wealth increases, to the point of providing no guidance at

all when a multi-million- or multi-billion-dollar corpora-

tion is involved.

Consider the following hypothetical: an individual

with net worth of $100,000 and an insurance company

with net worth of $1 billion engage in identical tortious

conduct causing identical injuries. A jury determines that

the imposition of $10,000 in punitive damages against the

individual defendant (10 percent of net worth) is suffi-

cient punishment to have the prescribed deterrent effect.

On its face, this may not appear to be unreasonable. See,

e.g., Goshgarian v. George, 161 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1228, 208

Cal.Rptr. 321 (1984) (“Where the other factors do not

militate in favor of reversal, the mere fact that the puni-

tive damages awarded equaled about 10 percent of the

tortfeasor’s net worth should not itself call for reversal of

the damages as excessive.”). But does this mean the jury

should impose punitive damages of $100 million against

the insurance company (10 percent of its net worth, but

10,000 times more than the fine imposed on the individu-

al) in order to achieve the same deterrent effect? Cer-

tainly not. But the jury is not told how the insurance

company should be treated differently from the individu-

al defendant. The same, imprecise “financial condition of

the defendant” factor is used in every case, even though

its application has to vary dramatically depending on the

wealth of the particular defendant involved. The vague-

ness of this factor where large businesses are concerned

means it is of little or no use in precisely those cases

12

where a well-defined standard is needed the most to

avoid excessive awards. A look at the names of the defen-

dants in the 507 cases included in our study of punitive

damage jury verdicts reveals that most of the verdicts

were against businesses.

D. A Defendant’s Financial Condition Is An Irrele-

vant, If Not Unconstitutional, Consideration In De-

termining The Amount Of A Penalty.

The use of wealth as a criterion for determining .!

amount of a punitive award assumes that a larger penalty

for wealthy defendants is necessary for effective deter-

rence. But the defendant’s wealth is not a factor in the

calculus of deterrence. Deterrence theory is based on the

plausible assumption that an actor weights the expected

costs and benefits of future conduct. The measure of

deterrence is the benefits to be derived from the conduct -

the costs should be set high enough to significantly ex-

ceed those benefits. The actor’s pre-existing wealth, or

lack of it, is irrelevant.

In any event, wealth should not be a constitutionally-

permissible criterion for determining punishment. In Wil-

liams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), this Court invalidated

on equal protection grounds the practice of imprisonment

beyond the statutory maximum jail sentence if the defen-

dant is financially unable to pay a fine. Logically, the

converse situation, where a penalty is increased if the

defendant is wealthy, should be equally repugnant to

constitutional guarantees. Punishment should be based

on what the defendant did, not on who the defendant is.

13

The impermissible effect of allowing a jury to consid-

er a defendant's wealth is plain: “[I]t cannot be ignored

that punitive damages may be employed to punish un-

popular defendants.” International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v.

Foust, 442 U.S. at 50-51 n.14. “It is a good guess that rich

men do not fare well before juries, and the more empha-

sis placed on their riches, the less well they fare.” Morris,

Punitive Damages in Tort Cases, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 1173, 1191

(1931). “[T]he biases and inclinations toward wealth re-

distribution exhibited by triers of fact are permitted to

influence decisions on punitive damage issues.” Ellis,

Fairness and Efficiency in the Law of Punitive Damages, 56 S.

Cal. L. Rev. 1, 53 (1982).

E. Consideration Of The Actual Damages Suffered By

The Plaintiff Has Not Proven To Be A Meaningful

Criterion.

The criterion that the punitive award must bear a

“reasonable relation to the injury, harm, or damage actu-

ally suffered by the plaintiff” has proven to be meaning-

less. California law does not even require that there be an

award of actual damages in order to sustain a punitive

damage award. E.g., Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co.,

211 Cal.App.3d at 1603 n.5; Carr v. Progressive Casualty

Ins. Co., 152 Cal.App.3d 881, 892, 199 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1984).

Where actual damages are awarded, the jury has no way

of knowing what a “reasonable relation” is in any given

case. In other contexts, the use of “reasonable” as a

measure is related to the common experience of the jury,

e.g., the “reasonable person” standard for negligence. In

this setting, however, there is nothing in the common

experience of a juror which sheds light on whether one

14

amount of punitive damages is more reasonably related

to actual damages than another. The jury is left to specu-

late.

Moreover, to say a punitive award must bear a “rea-

sonable relation” to actual damages on the heels of hav-

ing said the jury should consider the defendant’s wealth

creates a direct conflict. “[O]ne rule requires the propor-

tioning of the punitive award to the compensation

granted, while the other requires the proportioning of the

award to the defendant’s ability to pay it.” Dobbs, Hand-

book on the Law of Remedies 210-11 (1973).

The lack of any meaningful guidance from this factor

is borne out by the inconsistent manner in which Califor-

nia appellate courts use it to determine whether an award

of punitive damages is excessive. In almost every appel-

late opinion discussing this factor it is emphasized that

there is “no fixed ratio” between the award of punitive

and compensatory damages. E.g., Liodas v. Sahadi, 19

Cal.3d 278, 284, 137 Cal.Rptr. 635, 562 P.2d 316 (1977);

Downey Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 189

Cal.App.3d 1072, 1097, 234 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1987), cert. de-

nied, 486 U.S. 1036 (1988); Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 154

Cal.App.3d 688, 711-12, 201 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1984). In other

words, if the appellate court believes the jury’s punitive

award is warranted by the facts it will affirm, and if ».ot it

will reverse, regardless of the ratio of punitive to com-

pensatory damages. See Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts

14-15 (Sth ed. 1984); Dobbs, supra, at 211; Ellis, supra, at

60. We will spare this Court a recitation of the ratio of

compensatory to punitive damages in each of the numer-

ous California appellate decisions affirming or reversing

punitive awards. Suffice it to say we can find a case

15

affirming and a case reversing for just about every ratio

category. See, e.g., Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co., 211

Cal. App.3d at 1604 (“{A] ratio of 32.7 to 1 has been found

unreasonable . . . while ratios of 190.5 to 1... and even

2,000 to 1... have been found reasonable.”); Devlin v.

Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., 155 Cal.App.3d 381,

390, 393-96, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1984); Werschkull v. United

California Bank, 85 Cal.App.3d 981, 149 Cal.Rptr. 829

(1978) (affirming $550,000 punitive award where compen-

satory award was $1).

Absent a fixed ratio, the “reasonable relation” factor

is purely subjective and of no use to a jury in determining

what is proportionate in any given case. It adds no preci-

sion whatever to the process of determining the appropri-

ate amount of a punitive damage award. See Dobbs,

supra, at 211 (“Since no precise ratio is ever required, the

rule is really not a rule at all, but only a general idea. It

encourages an inflexible posture without adding any

commensurate certainty in the law. It probably doesn’t do

much harm, but it is difficult to see that it does any good

at all.”).

V.

CALIFORNIA’S UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE

POINTS THE WAY FOR THE REST OF THE NATION.

It is undeniable that California’s “no fixed standards”

standard in BAJI No. 14.71, with its three meaningless

factors, permits a jury to determine the amount of a

punitive award without essential guidance. This lack of

16

guidance renders punitive damage verdicts wholly un-

predictable and explains the incredible amounts Califor-

nia juries are awarding.

The three factors California juries are told to consider

are used in other states, including Alabama. See Hammond

v. Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1986). However, in Ala-

bama the jury is instructed only on the “reprehensibility”

factor.6 The “financial condition” and “reasonable rela-

tion to actual damages” factors, along with several oth-

ers, are for the trial judge to use in reviewing the jury’s

damage verdict for excessiveness. It strikes us as rather

strange that the Alabama Supreme Court would recog-

nize a need to rein in jury discretion concerning punitive

damages, but would seek to do so only by means of new

trial motions and appellate review rather than by an

appropriate jury instruction in the first instance. What-

ever happened to the defendant’s right to trial by jury

where punitive damages are concerned? In any event,

California’s experience demonstrates that instructing the

jury on factors such as “financial condition” and “reason-

able relation to actual damages” does no good anyway.

The factors are so subjective that they do not significantly

improve upon Alabama’s simple instruction, which effec-

tively tells the jury to pick any number it likes.

One is hard pressed to devise a penalty more vague

and destructive than California’s, Alabama’s, and most

8 In Haslip the jury was told: “Should you award punitive

damages, in fixing the amount, you must take into consider-

ation the character and degree of the wrong as shown by the

— and the necessity of preventing similar wrongs.” RT

17

states’ punitive damage laws. We are confident this Court

would not countenance laws imposing limitless fines.

Neither should it countenance limitless punitive damage

laws under which juries are rendering such incredible

verdicts.

VI.

THE TIME HAS COME TO INVOKE DUE PROCESS

TO FORCE STATE LEGISLATURES TO DO THEIR

JOB.

At the very least, due process should require state

legislatures to set the outer limit for punitive damages. A

certain degree of risk of arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement is inherent in every penalty. It is the legisla-

ture’s job to make the basic policy decision where that

risk should end by setting a maximum. See Grayned v. City

of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972) (“A vague law-

impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to. . .

judges . . . and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and

subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary

and discriminatory application.”). Mest state legislatures

have not done their job where punitive damages are

concerned. Until they do, until the maximum amount of a

punitive damage award is delimited by statute, and until

specific criteria for determining the amount of a punitive

award within the statutory limit are prescribed, punitive

damages should be deemed per se a violation of due

process of law.

?

18

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court should

be reversed with direction to strike the punitive damage

award.

Dated: June 1, 1990.

Respectfully wees

Frep J. Higstanp

E.us J. Horvitz

S. THomas Topp

Horvitz & Levy

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Association for California

Tort Reform

Al

APPENDIX A

1976

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Amount’ Case Name Vo../No./Pe.

$5,300,000 Austero v. Washington 20/30/38

National Insurance Co.

935,000 Eichar v. Surety Life 20/15/35

Insurance Co.

511,138 Runnels v. Astra 20/32/12

Pharmaceut

379,000 Fleckner-Palmtag Realty 21/3/9

v. Kaufman

175,000 Townhouse Gardens v. 20/19/32

Reliance Capital Corp.

125,000 U.S. Cablevision v. 20/14/21

Microwave Engineering,

Inc.

100,000 Richardson v. Handy 20/47/18

Pantry Food Stores

Amount

$10,000,000

2,000,000

336,000

275,000

250,000

250,000

220,000

175,000

150,000

A2

1977

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Rosener v. Sears,

Roebuck & Co.

Von Brimer v.

Whirlpool Corp.

Austero v. National

Casualty of Detroit

Sinclair v. Flo-Kem

Products

Anderson v. Weisman

Lemer v. Boise Cascade

Ginsburg v. Ginsburg

Parks v. Marine Office

of America

Miller v. Elite Insurance

Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

21/5/2

22/4/11

21/10/38

21/31/19

21/15/15

21/19/1

21/39/6

21/21/37

21/16/6

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

Amount

$125,000,000

4,000,000

1,750,000

1,500,000

1,075,000

1,000,000

663.000

500,900

500,000

500,000

250,000

165,000

150,006

140,000

A3

1978

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Grimshaw v. Ford

Motor Co.

Hasson v. Ford Motor

Co.

Pawlaczyk v. American

Hospital Supply Co.

Mardor v. Richards

Manufacturing Co.

Jones v. Bank of

America

Bialak v. Montgomery

Ward Co.

Veterinary Pathology v.

Revlon, Inc.

Davis v. Environmental

Power Ltd.

Dickinson v. Vorelco of

Cal., Inc.

J. Blazona Constr., Inc.

v. Evert

Stranlund v. Safeco Title

Insurance Co.

Davis v. Blue Cross of

Northern California,

Inc.

Chevalier v. Dubin

Aikey v. Vletas

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

22/14/26

2/45/23

22/36/18

22/29/19

22/52/4

22/51/14

22/43/24

22/31/22

22/24/4

22/48/6

22/46/21

22/42/3

22/26/20

22/16/20

Amount

$17,750,003

11,058,810

1,500,001

1,310,000

1,000,000

900,000

872,001

350,000

315,000

150,000

110,000

100,000

A4

1979

$190,000 And Over

Case Name

Harmsen v. Smith

Seaman’s Direct Buying

Service v. Standard Oil

Co. of Cal.

Kanins v. American

Hawaiian Steamship Co.

Helderman v. Int’l

Brotherh’d of Elec.

Wrkrs.

MPB Associates v.

United California Bank

Parnell v. Continental

Casualty Co.

Ingram v. Commercial

Bankers

Smith v. La Vista

Cemetery Assn.

Gilmore v. International

Finance and Trade =

Development Corp.

Alhino v. Western Title

Guaranty Co.

Fitzgerald v. Advanced

Health Systems, Inc.

Laurens v. Republic

Nat’l Life Insurance Co.

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

24/5/23

23/51/1

24/2/29

23/17/3

23/46/6

23/40/7

23/32/22

24/5/22

23/36/27

23/8/1

23/38/28

23/39/17

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

Amount

$9,900,000

6,510,000

4,500,000

3,000,000

2,200,000

1,500,000

1,350,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

750,000

560,000

525,000

400,000

350,500

346,000

300,000

275,000

A5

1980

$100,060 And Over

Case Name

Union Bank v.

Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.

Golf West of Kentucky,

Inc. v. Life Investors,

Inc.

Norman v. Colonial

Penn Franklin Life Ins.

Co.

Sanders Farms, Inc. v.

Griffin

C.C. Davis & Co. v

Alioto

Wayte v. Rollins

International, Inc.

Uhlmann Offices, Inc. v.

City National Bank

Glover v. Allstate

Insurance Co.

Pistorius v. Prudential

Insurance Co.

Noronha v. Biue Cross

ef No. California

Rosen v. Sneed

Diaz v. Tribune

Publishing Co.

Cohen v. Fitzsimmons

Jones v. Allstate

Insurance Co.

Ambrose v. Scott

Oberg v. A-S

Development, Inc.

Price v. Cavanaugh

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

24/25/27

24/33/22

24/52/19

24/43/18

24/28/2

25/8/12

24/51/13

25/2/19

24/17/3

24/20/6

24/48/16

24/8/3

24/17/4

24/26/40

24/48/3

24/30/12

25/3/17

Amount

250,000

200,000

200,000

A6

Case Name

M.V. Golden Pacific v.

San Diego Marine

Constr.

Austero v. Washington

National Insurance Co.

Chodos v. Insurance Co.

of North America

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

24/12/25

24/21/24

24/26/30

Amount

$3,117,946

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,073,559

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,500,000

1,300,000

750,000

750,000

700,000

584,045

558,160

A7

1981

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Spieker v. Senator Hotel

Associates

Betts v. Allstate

Insurance Co.

Moore v. American

United Life Insurance

Co.

The Glovatorium, Inc. v.

Nat’l Cash Register

Aceto v. Certified Life

Insurance Co. of Cal.

California Shoppers,

Inc. v. Royal Globe

Insurance Co.

Smithers v. Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

Hinton v. Venture Out

in America, Inc.

Marino v. Synanon

Church

Burnett v. National

Enquirer, Inc.

McKibben v.

Connecticut Indemnity

Co.

Ziglar v. Noble

Roland v. Al Sabah

Baker v. F.emper

Insurance Co.

Paulfrey v. Blue Chip

Stamps Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

26/5/8

25/48/17

26/15/13

25/25/4

25/27/10

25/38/15

25/46/24

25/13/8

25/43/7

25/25/23

26/9/9

25/52/19

25/48/2

25/10/34

25/46/31

Amount

500,000

500,000

260,000

250,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

166,000

150,0vU0

116,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A8

Case Name

Bananejad v. Habish

Int’l, Inc.

Mosby v. Duffin

Palmer v. Smith’s Food

King Market

Hapip v. Texas

Renaissance Festival,

Inc.

Ray v. Bank of America

Rulon-Miller v. IBM

Corp.

Schlager v. Homel

Songer v. Bordan

Kennedy v. Pier 1

Imports

Insurors of California v.

DeMarco, Barger, Beral

& Pierno

Fleming v. Safeco

Insurance Co. of

America

Badagliacia v.

Millennium

Waite V. Wasserman

Young v. Personal

Service Insurance Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

25/48/5

25/28/6

26/5/16

25/26/5

26/5/4

26/11/1

25/29/19

25/39/3

26/2/6

25/21/17

26/5/19

25/24/12

25/38/7

25/30/16

he ee tes El

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

Amount

$17,500,000

10,000,000

4,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,250,000

2,000,0U -

1,500,000

1,125,000

1,100,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

750,000

606,096

A9

1982

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

The P.K.L. Companies v.

The Eaton Corp.

West v. Johnson &

Johnson Products, Inc.

Norton v. Kaiser Steel

Corp.

Pitzer v. Security Pacific

National Bank

Pollard v. National Life

& Accident Co.

Beltz Travel Service,

Inc. v. Trans World

Airlines

Boles v. Travelers

Indemnity Co.

Travelers Insurance Co.

v. Lesher

Toshiba Semi Conductor

USA v. Consortium

Garvey v. State Farm

Fire and Casualty Co.

Bailey v. U-Haul

International, Inc.

Klinger v. Plastic &

Rubber Products

Thomsen v. Volkswagen

of America

Gonzales v.

Underwriters at Lloyds,

London

Supreme Industries, Inc.

v. Centurion Boats, Inc.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol. /No./Pg.

26/28/23

27/13/8

26/51/30

26/18/27

26/50/26

26/15/4

27/17/5

26/36/2

26/24/12

26/17/8

26/47/3

26/49/21

26/50/1

26/37/12

26/33/18

Amount

600,000

600,000

600,000

500,000

500,000

455,000

350,000

350,000

250,000

125,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A10

Case Name

Lloyd v. Fila Sports,

Inc.

Moss v. Equitable Life

Assurance Society

Shannon v. Jackes-Evans

Manufacturing Co.

Scholtz v. Shearson,

Hayden, Stone, Inc.

Woodland Production

Credit Assn. v. Nicholas

Geller v. 227 East

Anapamu St., Ltd.

Pellegrini v. Aycock

Stepp v. Great Western

Savings & Loan Assn.

Smith v. Hollywood

Collateral Loan Assn.

Cook v. Sears, Roebuck

and Co.

Granich v. Shapray

Hill v. National Auto &

Casualty Insurance Co.

Kennedy v. Building

Services Local 87

Lederman v. Pacific

Mutual

Meyer v. Byron Jackson,

Inc.

Newman v. Roston

Rhea v. RCA Corp.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

26/51/4

26/43/11

27/9/10

27/1/3

26/49/15

27/8/37

26/39/5

26/48 /6

26/53/4

27/14/37

27/7/20

27/2/22

26/20/1

27/2/28

26/39/29

26/50/39

26/28/18

- aN Gee

Amount

$40,025,000

15,000,000

13,054,479

8,456,250

8,000,000

5,000,000

2,681,000

2,035,000

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,500,000

1,0¢°.000

1,000,000

900,000

750,000

750,000

500,000

All

1983

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Fellows v. Allstate

Insurance Co.

The P.K.L. Companies v.

The Eaton Corp.

Berk v. National Union

Fire Insurance Co.

Greenberg v. Coldwell

Banker Co.

Frazier v. Metropolitan

Life Insurance Co.

Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.

Clark v. Wits, Inc.

S.R.H. Fabrics, Inc. v.

Formoco Int’l Corp.

Shepler v. Anami

Ashram, Inc.

Pitts v. Fibreboard

Corp.

Young v. Great Western

United, Inc.

Creative Wood Design

v. Aetna Casualty and

Surety Insurance Co.

Lembo v. Nardoni

Mancini v. Royal

Indemnity Co.

Glass v. Philip Roxanne,

Inc.

Ladd v. Superfilm, Ltd.

Four 425 Shatto Bldg.

Co. v. Air Conditioning

Co., Inc.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

28/23/19

27/52/21

27/44/16

28/20/25

27/24/21

27/17/31

27/48/16

27/36/3

27/18/9

28/8/1

27/42/26

28/4/8

28/26/20

27/21/1

28/26/12

28/26/24

27/35/20

Amount

500,000

480,000

400,000

360,000

339,525

300,000

250,000

240,000

225,000

220,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

139,000

Al2

Case Name

Nakahara v. Ace

American, Inc.

Baysinger v. Pacific

Mutual Life Insurance

Co.

Sullivan v. Kaiser

Foundation Health Plan,

Inc.

Wilson v. Meyer

Kan v. American

District Telegraph Co.

Adams v. Esparza

Collins v. Berner

Robinson v. Firestone

Tire & Rubber Co.

Dime’s Group v.

Travenol Laboratories,

Inc.

Hobbs v. Batemen,

Eichler, Hill Richards

Bravo v. The Clubhouse

Shirkhani v. Starcrest

Products of California

Wright v. Randles

Frankenberger v. Int’l

Real Estate Network

Mammoth Vista Owners

Assn. v. General Ins.

Co.

Silverado Title Co. v.

Sorensen

Kelly v. General

Telephone Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

27/30/7

28/19/17

28/17/25

28/19/34

27/42/2

27/49/5

28/15/7

27/33/21

28/12/10

27/24/24

27/44/25

27/40/14

27/32/6

28/26/22

27/51/15

28/13/15

28/25/20

2 ew eo al

Amount

125,000

125,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A13

Case Name

Northrup v. Fink

Schroeder v. Safeco

Insurance Co.

Americana Air Cargo v.

Sendrex Cargo

Calloway v. Travelers

Insurance Co.

Schwab v. Smith

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

28/14/7

28/7/12

28/6/23

27/29/13

28/6/14

Amount

$5,000,000

5,000,000

4,300,000

~ 4,000,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,660,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

1,584,000

1,500,000

1,500,000

1,500,000

1,150,000

Al4

1984

Case Name

Bertolani v. Equitable

Life Assurance Society

Downey Savings &

Loan Assn. v. Ohio

Casualty Ins. Co.

Dustman v. AMC Jeep

Corp.

Haughton v. Unigard

Mutual Insurance Co.

Royster v. Mission

Insurance Co.

Mattie v. Picker Corp.

Litwak v. Fed Mart

Corp.

Seeley v. Seymour

Ballou v. Traweek

Investment Co., Inc.

Taylor v. State Farm

Fire & Casualty Ins. Co.

Tushinsky v. Tushinsky

Phillips v. Travelers

Financial Services, Inc.

Davis v. Continental

Insurance Co.

Stern v. Dow Corning

Corp.

Umann v. Mor-Ben

Insurance Markets

Corp.

Farrell v. Police &

Fireman Insurance

Assn.

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

28/29/18

28/28/16

28/41/13

28/39/24

28/35/11

28/37/9

28/44/71

28/20/7

28/52/25

28/39/22

28/51/21

29/18/16

28/39/13

29/17/18

29/16/3

28/47/12

ee ete ae ie ane

_

Amount

1,007,000

1,000,000

750,000

732,083

680,000

650,000

525,000

500,000

500,000

500,000

442,500

400,000

400,000

370,000

300,000

Al5

Case Name

Satalich v. State Farm

Mutual Auto Insurance

Co.

McNair v. Worldwide

Church of God

Darblay v. Western

Medical Enterprises,

Inc.

Spangler v. Great

Southwest Fire

Insurance Co.

Dunkley v. Vermeer

Mfg. Co.

Doe v. Elashi

Fisher v. 20th Century

Insurance Co.

Ackerman v. K-Mart

Discount Stores, Inc.

Foreman v. United

Insurance Co. of

America

Total Experience

Records, Inc. v. Lang

Greenfield v. Spectrum

Investment Corp.

Coastside Publishers

and Printers v. Half

Moon Bay Review, Inc.

Jones v. Montgomery

Ward

Weaver v. Grodins of

California, Inc.

Shook v International

Dairy Queen, Inc.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

28/37/29

29/8/22

29/3/10

29/20/31

28/38/1

29/18/37

28/49/51

29/4/24

29/9/11

29/5/18

28/30/25

28/16/2

28/34/20

28/45/5

29/16/21

Amount

294,000

292,210

288,750

276,000

250,000

244,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

189,272

175,000

175,000

175,000

175,000

160,000

150,000

150,000

140,000

Al6

Case Name

Comfort v. Farasai

Barbara Colton Interiors

v. Joesoef

Waite v. Smith, Klieman

& St. Francis Hosp.

Smith v. J.C. Penney,

Inc.

Hanes v. Davis

San Jose Cash Register

v. Tokyo Electronics

Corp.

Kauric v. Hodgson

Velzy Engineering &

Machine, Inc. v. Western

Industrial Corp.

Vitali v. Bartell

Wells v. Raymark

Industries, Inc.

United Western

Insurance Marketing v.

Olken

Boozer v. All-West

Design, Inc.

Gigliotti v. Collins

Knott v. Boutin

Putz v. Industrial

Indemnity Co.

Pusateri v. E.F. Hutton

& Co., Inc.

Agarwal v. Bechtel

Corp.

Smyth v. Herschensohn

Adams v. California

Land Title Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

29/14/11

28/50/11

29/16/31

29/18/21

28/21/13

29/15/8

28/49/67

28/51/21

28/34/22

29/9/6

28/33/16

28/15/12

28/41/11

28/47/11

29/11/15

28/48/11

28/19/10

29/7/25

28/31/18

Amount

134,000

125,000

125,000

125,000

120,000

114,000

112,500

102,000

100,002

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

Al17

Case Name

Godfrey v. West Coast

Folk Clubs, Inc.

Greenup v. Bankers

United Life Assurance

Co.

Sanders v. Airport Park

Hotel

Stewart v. Cal-Farm

Insurance Co.

Allan v. Cal-Farm

Insurance Co.

Nelson v. Arcuri

Welch v. Marx

Friedman v. Spataro

Tassey v. Madera

Warehouse Co., Inc.

Abel v. Abel

Basque French Bakery v.

Toscana Baking Co.

Coleman &

Christianson, Inc. v.

Gold Depository and

Loan Co.

Davies v. Parker

Frazier v. City of

Alameda

Multiplex Insurance

Agency, Inc. v.

California Life

Insurance Co.

Oranje v. Bank of

America

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

29/20/32

28/44/29

28/38/32

29/7/19

28/33/13

28/40/9

28/49/61

29/8/5

28/33/11

28/23/29

28/39/14

28/23/2

28/36/2

28/30/1

29/7/1

28/22/14

A18

Amount Case Name

100,000 Wilson vy. Midland

National Life Insurance

Co.

100,000 Wright v. Echandi

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol. /No./Pg.

28/29/22

28/17/18

Amount

$125,000,000

46,500,000

35,000,000

26,675,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

10,000,000

8,500,000

7,163,340

7,000,000

6,243,750

5,002,500

3,500,000

3,115,000

3,000,000

Al9

1985

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Micro/ Vest v.

Computerland

Haun v. NEC

Electronics

Tan Jay International,

Ltd. v. Canadian

Indemnity Co.

Kruse v. Bank of

America

Rice Growers Assn. v.

Transamerica Delaval,

Inc.

McCullough v. S & H

Insurance Co.

Stanton v. Continental

Casualty Co.

Sykes v. Allstate

Insurance Co.

Tidwell v. Republic

Insurance Co.

Hronis v. Liberty

Mutual Insurance Co.

Bryn Mar v. Browne

Eastridge v. Shell Oil

Co.

Nielsen v. Atlantic

Richfield Co.

Wright v. General

Accident Fire & Life

Assurance Corp.

Sharma v. Safeco

Insurance Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

29/40/1

29/28/12

29/36/23

29/48/11

29/25/7

29/20/21

30/8/18

30/7/21

30/5/13

29/32/25

30/16/32

29/19/38

30/5/28

30/12/21

29/37/20

A20 A21

Jury Verdicts Jury Verdicts

Weekly Weekly

Amount Case Name Vol./No./Pg. Amount Case Name Vol./No./Pg.

2,585,000 E & H Wholesale, Inc. 29/45/18 921,000 Cohen v. ViaCom 30/11/20

v. Glaser Bros. . Enterprises, Inc.

2,500,000 Fitzsimmons v. 29/37/5 | 800,000 Backus v. Foremost 30/7/25

American Mutual Insurance Co.

Insurance Co. 800,000 Stegeman v. Sears, 29/50/1

2,500,000 Gagnon v. Continental 29/41/10 Roebuck and Co.

Casualty Co. 750,000 Carpet Svc. Systems v. 29/35/23

2,453,294 TRW, Inc. v. GTE 29/35/9 ; Canadian Indemnity Co.

Products Corp. 750,000 Sarno v. Sentry 29/40/15

2,350,000 Rookhuizen v. Aames 29/29/27 Insurance Co.

Home Loan, Inc. 700,000 Hughes v. Blue Cross of 29/27/6

2,127,500 Crake v. Me -tin 30/14/36 California

2,120,000 Young v. Knudsen 29/18/32 662,500 Cistaro v. GC Services 29/29/19

Corp. Corp.

2,002,500 Kreisher v. Mobil Oil 30/29/3 606,000 First Real Estate v. 30/2/23

2,000,000 Garrett v. Montgomery 30/2/8 Investment Mortgage

Ward Co. International, Inc.

2,000,000 Lisec v. United Airlines 30/26/15 500,000 Chapman v. Tera 30/3/23

1,500,000 Emerson v. Hitachi 30/39/32 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sales Corp. 500,000 Pierovich v. Equitable 29/47/24

1,500,000 Thomsen v. Pacific 29/37/7 Life Assurance Society

Telephone & Telegraph 500,000 Russell v. Sentry 30/4/20

Co. Indemnity Co.

1,400,0G0 Fox v. Hobie Coast 29/28/29 500,000 Simon v. Eureka 30/5/6

Catamaran Financial Corp.

1,360,900 Bettencourt v. Fireman’s 29/47/13 500,000 Watkins v. Arklin 30/39/27

Fund Insurance Co. 500,000 Thompson v. Boys 30/39/27

1,085,000 Orsatti v. Farmer 29/46/20 Market

1,060,000 Feldman v. Fox and 29/38/9 400,000 Hess v. Air France 29/23/30

Carskadon 400,000 Kramer, Wilson, 29/38/26

1,007,500 Bryant v. Merrill, 29/21/71 Sauvegeau, Inc. v.

Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Sauvegeau

Smith, Inc. 400,000 Morales v. Insurance 30/8/11

Co. of No. America

Amount

400,000

300,000

300,000

250,000

241,058

200,297

200,000

200,000

200,000

180,000

176,000

175,000

160,000

150,000

150,000

135,000

125,000

118,500

A22

Case Name

Thomas v. Aubrey

Foor v. Reliance

Insurance Co.

Ross-Leming v.

Continental Insurance

Co.

Ruby v. Industrial

Indemnity Co.

Manhattan Life

Insurance Co. v.

Eldridge

Ringham v.-A.T.

Kearney, Inc.

Green v. Standard

Brands Paint Co.

Nethery v. Unterthiner

Stephens v. Coldwell

Banker

Kee v. Farmers

Insurance Exchange

Hooper v. Fort Howard

Paper Co.

Ambrose v. U.S. Steel

Corp.

Moore v. Peterson

B & H Manu. Co. v.

Williamson

Palmer v. Ted Stevens

Honda, Inc.

Avila v. Commercial

Union Insurance Co.

Wallis v. Beverly Fabrics

Winograd v. Mangel

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

29/48/23

29/35/20

29/33/20

29/21/29

29/24/22

29/48/15

30/5/24

29/42/29

30/1/6

29/30/3

29/34/19

29/46/13

29/51/15

30/35/13

29/51/7

30/9/25

30/22/3

29/22/28

Amount

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A23

Case Name

Aston v. Yamaha Motor

Corp.

Brown v. Sierra Pacific

Power Co.

Gorospe v. Rosselli

Jacques Interiors v.

Petrak

Martin v. Farmers

Insurance Group

M-rtin v. Sunrise

Memorial Cemetery

Ochoa v. Financial

Indemnity Co.

Schletewitz v. Industrial

Indemnity Co.

Ganci v. Air Cal

Para v. Watsonville

Canning Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

29/41/16

29/36/31

29/21/6

29/27/24

29/34/2

29/26/1

29/31/23

29/36/15

30/17/31

30/17/7

A24 A25

Mercury News

1986 Jury Verdicts

ie ' | Weekly

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over Amount Case Name Vol./No./Pg.

nye =e peiee, fae

Weekl , ;

Amount Case Name Vol. /No./ Pg. porte. +e te oa be benenag 1 rod a a

600, i ; state Ins.

$20,000,000 Castlerock Properties v. 31/22/12 An elk

Industrial Indem. Corp. 30/33/11

15,004,700 Bancroft v. Equifax 30/50/21 521,792 aera Standard /33/

Services, Inc. 500,000 Chapman v. Wells Fargo 31/13/24

14,000,000 April Enterprises, Inc. v. 30/39/19 - a 4 ,

KTTV

9,000,000 Kilroy Industries v. 30/47/18 500,000 a v. Allstate 31/5/20

United Pacific Ins. Co. ,

6,580,750 Owens v. Snap-On Tools 30/40/8 475,000 annem v. — 30/34/16

5,600,000 Blough v. State Farm 30/26/33 awe SS.

5,000,000 Leonardini v. Shell Oil 30/40/14 450,000 Penney _— . 30/47/9

Co. roup, Inc. v. Anania

4,000,000 Rodriguez v. Western 30/39/24 400,000 Kern v. A. 30/38/19

oe 0 aie tae h and 30/37/19

Oo. 406),000 Industria utch an

3,000,000 Dean v. Chrysler Corp. 30/46/8 Brake, Inc. v. Employers

1,900,000 Corsini v. Joannou 31/2/18 Casualty Co.

1,600,000 Gallego v. Schaefer 30/34/20 400,000 Slater v. Bostitch 31/9/26

1,500,000 a v. Foodmaker, 30/43/1 350,000 Syverson v. Centennial 30/52/7

nc. Ins. Co.

1,319,000 Badii v. Imperial Bank 31/6/25 325,000 Sutton v. Mid-Century 30/43/2

1,250,000 Radell v. Comora 30/40/25 Ins. Co.

1,000,000 Lorenzetti v. United 31/9/15 300,000 Snelson v. Imperial Sav. 30/43/15

States Fire Ins. Co. & Loan Assn. of San

850,000 Ozdiker v. Crocker 30/33/18 Diego

National Bank — ’

:' 300,000 Guerrero v. Figgie Int’l 30/41/28

hae Gee v. Estate of 30/35/21 278,500 Sofos v. Perkins 30/48/08

750,000 Baldi Brothers 30/18/32 265,000 J.R. Norton Co. v. 30/22/4

Construction Co. v. WE General Teamsters, etc.

Mims Sie lt Union, Local 890

750,000 Fletcher v. San Jose 30/36/15

Amount

256,798

250,000

250,000

233,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

175,000

175,000

159,000

150,000

150,000

126,000

125,000

125,000

A26

Case Name

Professional Reliable

Nursing Service, Inc. v.

Waring

Duffy v. Cavalier

Smith v. Brown Forman

Distillers Corp.

Geller v. 155 Sansome

Street

Liu v. Interinsurance

Exchange

Nielson v. Fire

Insurance Exchange

Forden v. Vogel

Wallis v. Farmers

Group, Inc.

Hustede v. Eureka

Federal Savings & Loan

Kinsler v. Deutsch

Lang v. Healthco Int’l

Corp.

Zuniga v. Baker

Vacco Industries v.

Powell

Maruca v. General

Constr. & Management

Co.

Keenan v. City and

County of San Francisco

Bracy v. Occidental

Cheinical Co.

Tobin v. Federal Home

Life Ins. Co.

Victoria v. Kaiser

Foundation Hospital

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

30/37/14

30/23/8

30/30/28

30/15/4

30/38/24

30/29/7

30/24/8

30/27/8

30/42/2

30/22/22

30/44/12

30/50/13

30/36/24

30/52/12

31/2/8

31/4/7

30/46/10

30/34/21

Amount

120,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A27

Case Name

Venegas v. Skaggs

Faria v. Northwestern

National Life Ins. Co.

Jakymiw v. Custom

House Association

Gilliam v. First National

Monetary Corp.

Long v. Blue Cross of

Northern California

Diehn v. C & C

Organization

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

30/32/26

30/30/20

30/36/26

30/41/2

31/2/1

30/41/31

A28 | A29

1987 Jury Verdicts

a , Weekly

nea my ee Races Amount Case Name Vol./No./Pg.

2,000,000 Kasparian v. Hahn, 31/26/24

Weekly Cazier & Leff

Amount Case Name Vol./No./P¢. 1,576,500 Gourley v. State Farm 31/16/22

ree Mutual Ins. Co.

$50,000,000 mae v. Wells Fargo 31/52/3 1,500,000 Singer v. Ohio Casualty 31/31/25

an a Ins. Co.

30,000,000 eo v. Bank of 32/12/18 1,000,000 Lanouette v. Ciba-Geigy 31/26/18

as ee: 1,000,000 Johnson v. Spelling- 32/15/19

22.666,656 — California v. 31/50/16 Goldberg Productions

16,950,000 Collett v. Pluess-Staufer, 31/41/36 on ee ere i sctiaa

Inc. rm

15,000,000 Abellon v. Hartford Ins. 32/15/26 ee

Co. 795,000 te Eichenlaub 31/31/6

; , V.

ne ee ses TOI16 750,000 Adams v. Murakami 32/5/21

5,000,000 Crandall-Millar v. Sierra 32/1/10 540,000 a v. Chemgold, 31/47/7

Vista Hospital

5,000,000 Klein v. Oakland 31/26/39 590,000 Cheval v. Great 31/47/2

Raiders Republic Ins. Co.

4,000,000 Warren v. Colonial Penn 31/39/18 500,000 Dean’s Materials v. 32/29/10

Franklin Ins. Co. Pacific Telephone &

3,000,000 Mitchell v. Ferrer 32/18/1 telegraph Co.

2,914,180 Vigil v. Farmers New 31/28/1 500,000 Stein v. Domyan 31/21/20

World Life Ins. Co. 500,000 Heilig v. Liquid Air 31/13/6

2,603,765 Vargas v. Retail Clerks 31/30/23 Corp.

Union, Local 1428 450,000 Theisen v. Sommer and 31/36/8

2,510,000 KS+A Marketing, Inc. v. 31/37/10 Maca Industries, Inc.

Xebec, Inc. 400,000 De La Cerda v. Bonded 31/48/18

2,500,000 Jenkins v. Insurance Co. 32/3/23 Home Loans

of North America 392,264 Conway v. Qualidyne 32/28/37

2,290,000 Bryan v. Hudson Bay 31/46/25 Systems

Mining and Smelting 275,000 Mitchell v. High Society 31/27/20

Co. Magazine, Inc.

2,250,000 Pratt v. Stewart Title 31/27/24

Co.

Amount

272,859

250,000

250,009

250,000

250,000

250,000

250,000

250,006

235,600

225,000

200,001

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

150,000

150,000

150,000

145,125

141,000

125,000

A30

Case Name

Luck v. Southern Pacific

Transportation Co.

Morimoto v. Ticor Title

Ins. & Trust Co.

JHJ Co., Inc. v. Farmers

Rental Service, Inc.

Central Bag and Supply

Co. v. Int’l Baking Co.,

Inc.

Menchaca v. Hammond

Jatari v. Pahlavan

Johnsen v. Metropolitan

Life Ins. Co.

Arakelian v. Millman

Nelson v. Shell Oil Co.

State of Calif. Dept. of

Transp. v. Storage

Services

Mobarry v. Lobherr

Davis v. General

Accident Ins. Co.

Public Ins. Service, Inc.

v. Carlisle Ins. Co.

Westbrook v. Fairchild

Becker v. Opus Three

Johnson v. Visalia

Newspapers, Inc.

Curry v. Shell Oil Co

Battensehlag v.

McCandless

Beck v. Zattiero

Dumas v. Stocker

Casey v. MCI Digital

Information Services

Corp.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

32/9/7

32/7/18

31/49/15

31/22/19

31/26/37

31/42/10

31/42/8

32/2/1

32/4/19

32/18/7

31/49/25

32/6/12

31/25/20

31/14/25

31/46/5

31/21/18

31/48/3

32/23/27

31/23/4

31/35/36

31/35/12

Amount

125,000

120,500

103,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

100,000

A31

Case Name

Rode v. Shearson/

American Express, Inc.

Schmidt v. Hyatt Corp.

Cervenka v. Centro

Corp.

Sims v. Valley Crest

Landscape, Inc.

Sobek v. Sutherland

Wickes Companies, Inc.

v. Tejon Ranch Co.

Wright v. Holm

Jury Verdic.s

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

32/3/27

31/26/9

31/44/39

31/45/19

31/42/3

31/49/14

31/9/1

Amount

$147,000,000

85,000,000

10,750,000

10,500,000

5,006,500

5,000,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1 045,000

875,000

800,001

750,000

750,000

700,000

650,000

A32

1988

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Baroway v. KMG Main

Hurdman

Riddle v. Southmark

Corp.

Young v. Von’s Markets

Wegis v. J.G. Boswell

Co.

Molett v. Farmers Ins.

Exchange

Potter v. Fire Ins.

Exchange

Duggan v. Hasso

Amirian v. Brockton

Plaza

Koch Membrane

Systems v. Advanced

Membrane Tech., Inc.

R.A. Fields Co., Inc. v.

Mission Industries, Inc.

Roberts v. Ford |

Aerospace, Inc.

Adcotech Corp. v.

Equitec Leasing Co.

Farajpour v. University

of Southern California

Abel v. Automobile

Club of So. California

Koire v. Transamerica

Occidental Life Ins. Co.

Dixon v. Fremont

Rendezvous, Inc.

Redlick v. Anderson

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

32/49/16

33/17/33

33/7/27

33/6/15

33/13/19

33/3/

32/48/11

32/42/23

32/41/24

33/17/15

33/21/33

32/36/3

33/11/25

32/51/29

32/49/31

33/19/2

32/20/9

6 ental

Amount

500,000

300,000

280,000

250,000

250,000

250,000

150,000

150,000

145,487

125,000

101,000

100,000

A33

Case Name

Evans v. Rolling Hills

Community Assn.

Brooks v. Mercury Cas.

Co.

American Nursing

Resources, Inc. v. Doe

Patrick v. Maryland

Cas. Co.

Chappell Masonry, Inc.

v. Swanston

Newell v. Silen

Moore v. Perry

Casebolt v. Cranfiil

Cavin v. Fremont Ford

Van Pelt v. Safeway

Stores, Inc.

Lamont v. State Farm

Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Jahamardi v. Tandy

Corp.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

32/27/16

32/32/18

32/49/4

32/32/3

33/14/4

32/36/15

33/26/20

33/21/30

33/23/1

32/46/3

32/30/2

33/15/24

Amount

$12,000,000

7,250,000

6,500,000

5,500,000

4,500,000

3,800,000

3,000,000

3,000,000

2,500,060

2,400,000

2,014,281

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

A34

1989

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$100,000 And Over

Case Name

Kasparian v. Fremont

Indemnity Co.

Christian v. Estate of

Rock Hudson

Jones v. Johnson

Controls, Inc.

Hacker v. Roscoe Moss

Co.

Mercedes-Benz of N. A.,

Inc. v. Hartford Acc. &

Indem. Co.

DuBarry Int’l, Inc. v.

Southwest Forest

Industries, Inc.

Chitwood v. Founders

Title Co.

Fernandez v. Citicorp

Credit Services

Belle Haven Realty Co.

v. CAZ Dev. Co. Eight

Rider v. Flynt

Perrotti v. Syntex

Laboratories, Inc.

Signal Carousel

Apartments v. Imperial

Bank

Kinzel v. Messieh

Bacciocco v. Myers

Jackson v. GAB

Business Service, Inc.

Nutri-Metrics v. Gigi

Enterprises

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

33/45/19

33/33/21

33/25/28

33/26/29

33/40/26

33/39/27

33/31/17

33/28/23

33/37/11

34/10/22

34/15/22

34/14/28

33/38/23

33/32/4

33/37/25

34/2/25

Amount

1,538,000

1,060,910

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

850,000

850,000

800,000

750,000

625,000

521,000

520,000

500,000

425,000

400,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

300,000

A35

Case Name

Ertel v. Kersenbrok

Will v. United Pacific

Ins. Co.

Mack v. Pepperidge

Farm, Inc.

Bourn v. Farmers Ins.

Group

Tinmahan Consultants,

Inc. v. Bank of America

Doyle v. Pattison

Beeler v. Rent A Car

Cheep, Inc.

Martinolich v. Freedom

Newspapers, Inc.

General Money Order

Co., Inc. v. Reese

D’Arcy v. Union Oil Co.

of California

Calderoni v. Johnston

Builders, Inc.

Weissman v. Terra Nova

Industries

Carpenter v. Snider

Prillig v. Bianchini

Spraylat Corp. v.

International Marketing,

Inc.

Todt v. Hoh Water

Technology Corp.

Henderson v. Varley

Cooper v. Fireman’s

Fund Ins. Companies

Williams v. State Farm

Fire & Cas. Co.

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

34/11/26

33/41/29

34/10/30

33/36/25

33/20/6

34/11/27

34/17/25

33/38/31

33/41/19

33/26/13

34/8/6

33/46/2

33/39/17

33/29/15

34/11/17

33/25/25

33/49/30

34/4/16

33/45/1

A36

Amount Case Name

257,500 Lamonica y. Bank of

merica

250,000 Espinola v. Fluid

Inc

200,000 Sp

200,000 onia v. Parnas Corp.

200,000 Monasterio v. Cal Fed

Insurance Agency

Hopson v. Gilleon

Baumgarten y. Bonanza

Management Co.

150,000 Hoffman vy. Provident

Federal Savings

Conner y. Marilyn

Miglin, Inc.

Security Pacific National

Bank v. Alcaino

123,000 Los Angeles Firemen’s

Credit Union y,.

Kennedy

112,000 Olguin y, Shipe

100,000 Enfield y. Ohio

Casualty Ins. Co.

175,000

150,000

150,000

140,000

Systems Division, UOP,

erling v. Burger King

Jury Verdicts

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

33/35/2

33/50/33

33/40/16

33/43/11

33/41/19

33/49/32

33/25/1

33/40/12

33/22/10

33/47/25

33/48/19

33/39/12

34/4/22

APPENDIX B

1976

Punitive Damage Jury Verdicts

$1,000,000 And Over

Result of

Jury Verdicts New Trial Motion

Source for

Damages Result

Re: Punitive

Weekly

Vol./No./Pg.

Case Name

Amount |

$5,300,000 Austero v. Washington National

Ira Rivin

Attorney for

Defendant

Remitted to

$250,000

20/30/38

Insurance Co.

Bl

B3

juepusjoq

10} AQUIONY

JAOPL EM

sowee

jue pudjoq

Joy Asuiony

jjnqd

93109

JpHUuleld

1oy AQUIONY

JOWWIMYIS

Inyuy

juepusjoq

10} AQUIONY

dOUITID

uyof

R6E “BBE

Peed) 7

TLL ‘LSL

pe ddyje5

611

1[Nsoy

1OJ IdINOS

000'00S$

0} poiws3y

poiury

po1usq

po1usq

porusq

uoT|[IW CEs

0} ponilwdy

soseweqd

SAtIUNg :3y

pl/1S/7Z

b/7S/7Z

61/67/7Z

81/9¢/77

€7/Sb/7T

97/P1/7Z

‘Bd/‘ON/‘10A

AT FIOM

09

pie, Alowosiu0opw ‘A yelelg

eouowy jo yuRg “A souor

‘OD SurNnjoejnue~pw

spieyory ‘A JOWWIeW

‘09 Ajddng jeidsoy |

ureouowy “A yAzoRe[Medg

‘O-) 1010 plo4 “A UOSssSeH

ww

‘OD 1OIOFW Ploy “A MEYSWILID

QWRN aseD

000000" I

000°SL0°I

000°00S"I

000°0SL'I

000°000'r

000*000'SZI$

junowy

UONOW [RUL MON SIOIps9a Aine

jo 1[Nsoy

1949 Puy 000'000'I$

S1OIpI9A, Ang osewed saniundg

8Lé6l

JJNUTe Td

Joy Aoswony

mo iopkug

PUlISIIY) poluriy z ;

ZL ‘Obl 1 1/b/7Z dio} joodpyA “A JIWUgG UOA 000'000'Z

peddy eD ‘0D

OL polusd 7/S/1Z FV YONGIOY ‘siv9g “A JoUssOy YO0'O00'OIS$

1jnsoy soseweg ‘3d/'ON/‘JO

10OJ d0INOS SANIUNG :3y hans . iii ee

UOHOW [PUL MIN sloIpssq Aung

jo 1[Nsoy

J9AQ PUY 000'O00'I$

SIOIpPI9A, Ainge oBeweq dsaniung

Ll61

JJ UIC Id

io} Aowony

poludod 000° r97$ ee

sowep 0} poniwoy 7/87/PZ O1lol[yY “A “OD FW staeqd ‘DOOD 000 00T TC

ATYIOM

SIOIPJOA 000°007$ wes

Aung =O}. pon WY 81/Eb/PZ UJUH “A “OUT ‘suey SJIPUrS OOO O00 t

juepudsjoqg

10} Aowiony ‘OD doURINSU] IIT UlTyURI

sadeH UYyos polusd 61/7S/7 uudg [BIUOJOD “A URULION (00‘'00S'P

juepusjog

1ojy Aowony

ULdISPIOH ‘QU] ‘SIOISSAUT IJI'T

pA ‘A PlOsof polusd TC/EE/PT ‘A “Our ‘AYOnIUDyY 10 SIM JIOD = OOO'OIS'9

” juepusjoq

Joy Aowony

uMOIg uoITIW [¢ ‘OD ‘su

preukew sO} PONT LU/S@/b7 puny s,uewaity “A yuRg UOIUL, (00'006'6$

Nsoy soseweqd ‘Sd/'ON/' [0A QWEN ISPD junOWYy

JO} 90INOS dAlIUNg :39y A[¥OOM

UOnOW [REUL MON Slorps9q Aine

jo 1Nsoy

12AQ PUY O0OOD'OODD'IS$

S}OIpsoaA, Aung o8eweq saniung

O86l

jUBPpUdJIG

Joy Aduony

SIJO'T] O$

yueg eiusojiley

woqoy 0} poliwe ‘000°

semen Pponilwoay 9/9b/€Z Peuuy) “A saieIs0ssy qdW 000‘000'I

Joy AdwONYy

Bp. ‘ilies ‘SII, “99Tq JO

mibenons €/LI/EZ P.Ysomolg [IU] “A URWAPIOH OOO‘OIE'!

Joy AduIONYy

ZUAIOH ‘Oo

D diysweas

= x f SHIA pstusd 67/7/bZ UPHEMEH UBOLOUWY “A suIURy [Q0‘00S'|

ea) ors oe Pre. L$ ‘IRD JO “OD [IO psrepurig ‘A

o1wW9 ; ‘ F

po ponrway I/IS/ET —- PDtAIOG Burkng req s,uewesg QIg‘gso'l|

SIDIPIOA,

Aine potuod €7/S/bZ Yiuus “A UssSUeH EOO'OSL‘LIS

I[Nsoy soseweg ‘Sd/'ON/"[O owe

JOJ d01N0S SANIUNG :dy ATMOOM r — tied

UONOW [PUL MIN sloips9aq Arne

JO 3Nsoy

J9AQ PUY OO00'OO0'IS

SISIPJIA Ainge adeweg daniung

6L6l

B7

ON

B6

fl ‘I

pe'ddy'je5

SLI

ATHOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepusjoq

10} AoWwony

UILAJ]

We ITTTAA

7r9 “O19

pe ddy1re5

OSI

L69 ‘889

pe ddy 1e5

Sl

juepusjoq

io} AoMony

SIOIEW

WOPOdy,L

1Nsoy

JO} DINOS

wu

brs ‘Ips

pe ddy ep

€TZI

1UBPUIJIG

Joy Aguony

uoisny

preuog

yyuureld

Joy Aguony

ZMUAIOH

‘f SUIS

6 ‘I

pe ddy jep

691

1Nsoy

JO} IDINOS

pojuri3

AONE

-porusqd S1/8¢/SZ

UOT|[IW 1¢

O} poIlWdy OL/LZ/SZ

po1usq b/S7/ST

poluod EL/S1/9Z

poiusq LI/8b/SZ

po1usqd 8/S/9Z

soseweqd “Ba/'ON/'10A

dATIUNG :9y AT HOON

UOHOW [RUE MON Sloips9aq Aine

jo 1Nsoy

19AQ puy

‘OD dduRINSUT BQO[H [eAOY

‘A ‘Ouy ‘sssddoysg eIUsOsI[eD

‘TeD jo

‘OD ‘SUT IJIT PIII “A Ol9V

JOISIZIY YseD

[JON ‘A ‘OUT ‘WNWOWAOTH 94

‘OD douURINSU]

Ii] pouy uredusewy “A WoOoW

‘OD DuRINSU] eIST[Y “A SNIOg

Saelo0ssy

[0H JOyeUIS “A JOYyIIdS

dWeN IPD

000000" T$

s}oIps9a, Aung o8ewed santundg

L86l

po1usq €/L1/¢7

po1usg 61/7/SZ

OO00'OSE$

O] poliwsy €1/1S/P7Z

000'80r$

O1 poniwsy 71/8/SZ

sosewrg ‘Sd/'ON/10A

2AIUNg :3y ATMOOM

UONOW [PUL MON sloIpssaq Arne

JO Nsoy

05

douRINSU] [BNUIPMIg “A SNUOISIg

05

QOURINSU] SIRIS[]Y “A JOAOTD

yueg yeuonen

AUD “A “OUT ‘SO91IJO UUReWTYA

‘Ou]

‘JPUONBUIOIU] SUTTTOY “A JAR

dWEN Ise

panunuoD Og6l

000°000°Z

000°000°7

6SS*ELO'T

000°00S$*7

000°000't

9r6'LII'¢e$

jnowYy

000°000' I

000°000' I

000'0S€*I

000°00S"I

junNOWY

jURPUIJIG

10} Agwiony SOUILJTY POM SUueIL

ZSNBL IAD§ poluod b/S1/97 ‘A ‘OUT ‘DOIAIIE JOARIL 219 OOO'OSTZ

AT HOON

SIOIPIOA ‘OD WwdpIddYy

Ang poluod 97/0$/97 Ww ary jeuoneN “A Psep[Od O0O0'OOS'Z

juepusdjog

10} AQWIONY

ye yur JPUOHIPEN

jepuey ‘ff pousqd LU81/97 s1yrorg Aiunoag “A 197d 000000"

ATYIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine pour Or/1S/97 ‘diod [901g sasiey A UOLON QO00'OOS'P

Or “1e8

pe ddy [ep uo 1¢ ‘Quy ‘SIONPOld

A pli 0} ponlwoy S/E1/LZ uosuyor w uosuYyor “A ISAAK —O0O'ONO'OT

(1Z7/ZS/L@)

AT HOON

SIOIPIOA ‘diog uoieg

Aine pour €7/87/97 ayy ‘A soruedwod “Td UL O00'OOS'LIS

1Nsoy sosewed ‘3d/'ON/‘10A WRN IseD jnowy

JO} ddINOS dATIUNd :9y AL YOON

UONOW [EUL MON SIOIPIOA Aing

jo 1Nsoy

19AO Puy 000'O00' I$

s1oipioa, Aung odewed santund

7861

$I

L66 ‘166

peddy [ep 000'OSL$ ‘ia

vrl 01 poliwe >7ICZ/C ‘ , eee

o opens Ps E7/S7/S7Z jouinbugq [euoneN “A noewNg QOO‘O0E'!

rea) Joy Aoswony

psOjMPBI-) uoI[[IwW 1¢

[luke O01 poliws ;

Patan poniwoy L/¢tv/SZ yoinyd uoueuds ‘A OuLeWFW OOO'OOS'I

ae po1usq ‘oul ‘POWOWYy

en

KPO 7 B/el/s7 Ul ING NIU “A UOIUIH (00‘00S"I

SISTPIOA udIT[IW 1 ¢ one

aoe | ‘1okep

Aung =O): pay woy bZ/9b/SZ -UKMP{OD-OnIW ‘A SIBIWS 900'D00'Z

I[NsSoOy soseweqg ‘Ba/ ON/‘10

JOJ IDINOS SAINUNG :9y ty se 7 oWRN ISPD junowy

UOHOW [PU MON

jo 1Nsoy

SIDIPI9A Aine

panunuod 1861

Bll

JJNULK Ig

B10

cLOL

pe ddy jep

991

b6 ‘06

pe ddy ‘ep

691

JJ UTE Td

Joy Aguiony

ZMAIOH

‘f SII

A[YIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

jue pUudsJOg

Joy Aouiony

PIO Yltpne

1[Nsoy

1OJ 901n0S

UOTT[IW [¢

01 poilwMdy

UOTTTIW ZF

01 poniwmsy

uoT{[IW ZF

O1 ponlmdy

porusq

po1usq

pouely

soseweg

sAnIUNg :3y

LE/LI/LZ

1@/p2/Lz

$7/07/87

91/bp/LZ

1Z/ZS/L7Z

61/€7/87

‘Bd/'ON/ 190A

AT YOO

UONOW [PUL MON SlOIps9A Aine

Joy Adwony

P1OJMBID

sows

JJNUle Td

Joy Aawiony

sopoyy

[9TT'H

ATYIOM

SIDIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

luepudjoqg

Joy Aswony

[ome HY

sewoyy

ATYOIOM

SIDIPI9A

Aine

ATHION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

1[Nsoy

JOJ d01n0S

jo 1[Nsoy

poiusg

poiusg

potusqg

potusq

poiusg

Pe

uonowW ON

UOIT[IW 71g

01 ponimsy

sodeweg

SANIUNG dy

UONOW [PUL MIN

JO 1[nsoy

‘Quy ‘xejinbg ‘A on3eids

‘OD d0uRINSU]

ary uewpodonsyp ‘A J31ze14

‘05

Joyueg [[9MP[OD ‘A B19quadIH

‘OD d0uRINsU]

d1fJ UOIUL, [eUONIRN ‘A yog

‘diog uoieg

ou ‘A SotuedWwOoD “TWd UL

05

JOURINSU] DIRIS[[Y “A SMOT[I4

dWeN sep

J9AQ PUY 000'O00'I$

SIOIPIOA Aung sBeweq saniung

t86l

1/0S/9Z

17/66/97

€/Lb/97

8/L1/9Z

Cl/b7/9Z

c/9€/9Z

S/LI/LZ

‘Bd/ON/"[0A

ATYIOM

SIDIPIIA Aine

000°000'S

000°000'8

OS7'9Sh'8

6LbP'PSO'el

000°000'S I

000°SZ0'Or$

nowy

eoWoWYy

JO UISEMSYIOA “A UdSWOYL

000°000* I

sIONpolg

J9QqNY ? InseIlg “A Ja3uITy

000°000° I

‘Ou

‘[PUONPUIDIU] INPH-f) “A Aatieg

000°000* |

‘OD Alensen

Pue sly WIRY deg “A AdAIRD

wniosuoy

VSN JoloNpuoD 1wag eqrysoy

000°00I ‘I

“A

000°SZI*I

Joyso7q

‘A OD adueINsUy sudpoARLy

000°00S"I

‘0D

Aytuwapuy SISJOARIE “A Salo

OWEN oseD

panunuod 73961

000°000‘'Z

junowy

B13

a __—_—_—

B12

A[YIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

A[Y29AA

SIDIPIOA,

Aine

jue pusjog

10} Adu0ony

uOWIS

praed

AI¥99M

SIOIPIOA

Aing

jyuuetd

oy Awony

JOULOY

[jossny

6601 ‘ZLO1

pe ddyjeD

681

ATYPON

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

1Nsoy

10] 90INOS

juRpUdJIG

Joy Aowony

SuIWWdH

Auoy

jue pUudjag

Joy Aswony

q4iq

ueyleuor

A] YOOMA

SIOIPIOA

Aine

A]YOOM

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

luRpUdJIg

Joy Aswony

UIAODIW

uowung

jue pUdJIg

Joy Adwiony

UISIOG 1919q

luURpUdJIG

Joy Adwony

uljodg noog

1Nsoy

JO} d01N0S

poiusd

poiusq

poiusqd

paiusq

udoTT[IW 1 ¢

0} ponlwsy

poiusq

poiusq

sosewed

AtIUNg :3y

jo 1[Nnsoy

poiusg

potusg

poiusg

polusq

polusq

po1usqg

poiusg

soseweqg

DANIUNG :3y

UOHOW [PL MON

jo 1nsoy

LL/pb/87

6/LE/87

L1/S¢/87

p7/6¢/87

EL/1b/87

91/87/87

81/67/87

“Bd/'ON/‘10A

AT YOOMA

UONOW [PUL MON SIdIPs9A Asn

‘diod URW pe “A 4emi'y]

‘diog 194dId “A BINRW

09

Q0URINSU] UOISSIP “A JoIsAOY

‘OD sdouRINSU]

jenny puesiug “A uoiysneH

‘diog doog OW ‘A ueusng

‘OD ‘suy Aljensed o1yo “A

‘ussy uRkO7 ® SBulAREg AJUMOG

Aja1I90G s0uRINSSY

oJIJ sqeunby ‘A tuR[OMeg

OWEN ISPD

J2AQ Puy 000'000'I$

sloipioaq, Aung oSewed sAntund

Pol

07/97/87

8/b/87

97/Zb/LZ

1/8/87

6/81/LZ

€/9€/LZ

91/8b/L7Z

‘Bd/'ON/‘10A

ATHOOM

SIOIPIOA Aine

1UOpJeN “A Oquid’y

05

soueinsuy Aloing pue Aijensed

PUIDY “A UBISIG POOM IANRIID

‘oul

POMUS) UJIISOAA IWIIH “A Suno,x

‘diod psroqgoiqi.t “A sig

‘oul “welysy tweuy ‘A sajdays

dioy 1,1]

OJOWIO-Y “A “SUT ‘SOUQGRY “P'S

‘OUT “SIIAA A uRTD

oWeN oseED

PonunUOD ¢ER6l

000°000'€

000°00S*€

000°000'r

000°000'F

000‘°00*

000°000'S

000°000' S$

juNnOwWYy

000°000' I

000°000' I

000°00S$* I

000°008"I

000°000'Z

000°SE0'Z

000°189°Z

lunowy

B15

EE

B14

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepUusjoq

Joy Aowony

ddeuy uedy

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

AT YOON

SIOIPI3AA

Aine

juURpUudjoqg

Joy Asuony

isinbwolg

efuos

ATHIOM

SIDIPIIA

Aine

jue pUudjog

Joy Aowony

sysnounog

Ad1JJOIH

AT¥9OM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATYOOM

SIDIPIOA

Aine

ATHOOA

SIOIPIIA

Aine

juRBpUdsoq

Joy Aswony

uOSsy¥dIG

uyor

Nsoy

10} d0INOS

potusd

Suiesy

[el] MOU 0}

loud panes

000 LOLS

0} poiwsy

000°0SL$

01 poNWwsy

porusq

poiuoq

poiusg

poiusq

poiusg

000°O0S7$

01 poniwmsy

poiusq

soseweg

SATIUNG :9y

UONOW [RU MON

JO 1Nsoy

77/8/67

67/LE/87

ZI/Lb/87

€/91/67

81/L1/67

€1/6€/8Z

91/81/62

1Z/1S/87

C7/6£/87

S7/7S/87

L/0@/87Z

‘Bd/'ON/10A

ATHOIOM

SIOIPJIA Aine

pop jo

YOINYD IPIMpLOM “A JIENIA

‘OD d0uRINSU] OINY

jeninjy wWsey 31e1S “A YoeIeS

‘ussy d0uRINSU]

URWOII-] W Id1][Og ‘A [Ue]

‘diog sioyepw

d0uRINsuy] Udg-WOW ‘A uUUReWY

‘diogd Buoy Mod “A WIS

09

dOURINSU] [BIUSUTIUOD “A sIARq

‘OUT ‘S3DIAIIS

[PIOUBUI-Y SIOTOARIL “A sdiqjiyg

Aysurysny ‘A Aysurysny

‘OD dueINsU] AleENseD

¥ Wy WIRY 31g “A JO[ARL

‘Ouy “OD

JUJWISIAUT YOOMEIL “A Noe

InowAdsS “A Ad159S

OWEN aseD

PONUNUOY PR6]

000°000' |

000°L00'I

000°OSI'I

000°00S$" I

000°00S$" I

000°00S$* I

000'P8S* I

000°000'Z

060°000'Z

000°000'Z

000°099'Z

junoWYy

B17

Ica

B16

juepUudsoq

Joy Aouiony

ZUAIOW

‘f SUA

AT YOON,

SIOIPIOA

Aine

JJNUIC Id

1oy Aouiony

B1IIQUIDIS

swueH

juURpUdsog

Joy Adusony

ZNAIOH

‘f SUA

juRpUusjoq

Joy Aouiony

ZMUAIOH

‘f SUI

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Ainge

jURpUudjog

Joy Asuiony

BIIMZ

Plarg

ATYOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

luepuajag

Joy Aowiony

uosuyor

oe [D

luepuajoqg

Joy Aowony

ZUAIOH

f SUA

ATION

SIOIPIIA

Aing

luepUudjIG

Joy Aowiony

uedky

ydosor

ATHIOM

SIDIPIOA

Aing

AT¥IOM

SIOIPIOA

Ainge

1Nsoy

JOJ d0INOS

000°097' 7$

O1 poniwmsdy

poiusq

poiusq

66° TPT b$

01 poiw3dy

uOT{[IW ZF

01 ponilwsy

OSs 7L6$

0} poiiwsdy

porusq

UOTT|IW Cg

O1 poiwmsy

UOTT[IW O¢

01 poNiwoay

UOTT[IW [¢

O01 poliwoy

UOT|[IW O¢

0} ponilMmdy

000°00S$

O01 polniwoay

poiureiyn

po1usg

soseweq

dsALIUNG :3y

17/Z1/0€

87/S/0E

8¢/61/67

7e/91/0E

S7/7E/67

€1/S/0€

1 2/L/O€

61/L1/0€

17/07/62

L/S7/6Z

1 1/8b/6Z

€7/9£€/6Z

C1/87/67

1/0¢/67

‘3d/ON/"10A

AT¥29M

UONOW [WU] MON sidIpsaaq Aung

JO 1[Nsoy

‘dioy d0urinssy II]

LJ JOpPIddy [RIIUIH “A IWSUM

PIYIY OUePY “A UISTOIN

‘0D HO Ifus ‘A edpuiseg

oUMOIG “A IRF UAIG

‘OD d0uRINSU]

jeninpy Aloqiy “A stuolpy

05

dourinsuy dijqnday ‘A [[OMPLL

‘OD duRINSU] DeISTTY “A SOYAS

09

Ayenseg jejuounuodg “A uojuRis

‘OD d90uRINsu]

OO0'S IIE

000‘00S*¢

00$*Z00'S

OSL’ P79

000°000°L

Oree9I'L

000°00S$'8

000°000'0I

H ¥ § “A Yy8nOTIND2W 000‘000'01

‘OUT ‘TRARTOG BeoWoWeSURL]

‘A “USSY SIOMOIDN 391y 000‘000‘0Z

BOWOWYy JO yuRg “A osniy 000°SL9‘°9Z

‘OD Aluwapuy] ueipeuesy

A Pry ‘Teuoneusoajuy Aef uel gog‘ood's¢

SOlUOIID9[F OAN “A uneH QOO'OOS'OP

puepisindwod ‘a 1saa/oi1p 000°000'SZ I$

oWweN aseD junowYy

J9AO PUY 000‘000'I$

SIOIPI9A Ang aBeweq saniung

S86l

B19

nS a a

B18

ATYIOM

SIOIPIIA

Aine

juepusjog

Joy Aowony

uOosUudzIOF

B1eID

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepusjoq

10} AuIONYy

4yiws

AieyorezZ

juepusjoq

10} Aowony

udug.O

WITT

juepusjoq

Joy Aowiony

SWRITTIAA

urwefusg

juRepusjoq

Joy Aswony

jesiuo0g

[Se4YsIW

1uepusjog

Joy Aswony

19dQ

uopl0y

juBpUdJIg

Joy Aowony

uosuyor

Il9plyv

ATION

SIOIPIIA

Aine

AT YOON

SIDIPIOA

Aine

luepUusjog

Joy} Aowony

WN{QIIH

1919g

ATYIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

1Nsoy

10} 901n0S

po1usq L/L¢/67

000°007$

0} poms y 7£/6£/0€

poiusq S1/9Z/0¢€

po1usqg 8/Z7/0€

poiusq €/67/0£

Suuesy

jel] MoU 0}

1oud panes 7E/8 1/67

Suuesy

[el] MoU 0}

sold panes 9¢/r1/OE

po1usqg L7/67/67

poiusq 6/S€/67

po1usg OL/1¢/6Z

000°OSE$

O} polNlWoy S/L¢/67

Suuesy

jel] MOU 0}

old panes O7/LE/6Z

udTI[IW [¢

01 ponlwmsy O7/Lt/67

soseweg ‘Sd/'ON/1OA

dATIUNg :3y AT¥OOM

UOHOW [PUL MON SIOIDIDA Aine

jo 1[Nsoy

‘OD ydeiszj9L ¥

quoydajay oy1oeg ‘A usswOYL

‘diod soyes oe “A uosIOwWA

SOUIPITY PoWUy “A dOSIT

‘05

prea, AlowOosIUOW A NoIeH

HO TIQOW “A JOYsIOsy

‘diod usspnuy ‘A 3uno,x

UILIey “A DARIO

‘Quy ‘ueO7y

2WOH SowRYy ‘A UdzINyyooy

‘diod

SIONPOId ALO “A ‘OUT ‘MALL

‘05

Ayensed [ewounuod ‘A uouseyH

‘OD duRINsUT jenIN;W

URIOWY “A SUOWWISZIIJ

‘SO1g JOSRID

‘A ‘OUT ‘OTRSOIOUM, H ® |W

‘OD doURINSU] OdIJeS “A BULIEYS

IWEN oseD

ponunuo) Sg6l

000°00S' I

000°00S" 1

000°000°7

000°000°Z

00S*Z700'7

000°0Z1*Z

OOS*LZ1'Z

000°0SE*7Z

bET'ESH'Z

000°00S*Z

000°00S*Z

O000'S8S*Z

000°000'¢

junowy

B21

ATION

SIOIPIIA

Aang

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepusjoq

Joy Aowmony

os puued

‘')) usqoy

JJ NUE d

Joy Aouony

dye

yew

%t4 UND

Jousadns

jue pusjoq

Joy Aouiony

Yel 1919g

AT¥9OM

SIDIPIIA,

Aine

WNsoy

JO} 201n0S

poiusq b1/Ov/0E

po1us3q €£/9Z/0E

Suljns 0}

loud panes 8/0b/0E

poiusq 8I/Lb/0€

poms 61/6¢/0€

000°00S*1$

01 ponlMmsay 1Z/OS/0¢

pouriy ZI/72/1€

soseweqg “Sd/ON/1OA

dAIIUNg :3y AI¥9OM

UONOWFW [PUL MON SldIpI9A Aine

jo 1[Nsoy

‘0D HO Tl9Us “A tuIpseuoey

WIP 81S “A YsnOTg

S[OOL uQ-deus “A susMO

‘OD ‘sul deg

pouuy “A sowisnpuy Aolry

ALLM ‘A ‘uy ‘sosudinuq judy

‘oul

*‘SODIAIDS xejinby “A yoOIDURg

‘OD ‘wopuy [ewisnpuy]

‘A Sotusdoig yosspIseD

dWEN I9eD

J9AQ PUY 000'O00'I$

SIOIPIOA Ainge dBeweq dsariung

9861

000°000'S

000°009°S

OSL‘O8S'9

000°000°6

000°000' + I

00L*PO0'SI

000°000'07$

juNnowY

OOO OO ____—_eE_EEEEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeeeeee eee

B20

AI YIOM

SIOIPIIA

Aine

A[YIOM

SIOIPIIA

Aine

juRpUudjoq

10} AoWIONY

UOS|IAA

woqoy

ATYOOM

SISIPIOA

Aine

juRpusjoq

Joy Aowony

uejdey

uollo-Ww

1Nsoy

JO} 201NOS

OOO'ISI$

0} paniwmsy

000'0S7$

0} poniwoy

O$

0} poiws3y

poiusq

UOT{[IW [1g

Ol ponimsdy

soseweq

dANIUNg :3y

UOHO-WC [RUE AON SldIps9A Aung

jo 1[Nsoy

1L/12/62

6/8¢/67

07/9b/67

C1/Lb/67

67/87/67

‘Sd/ON/10A

AL ¥IOM

‘uy ‘YNWS 2? J9UUd ‘90191

‘youdA] ‘]]WUO; “A JURAIg

uopeysieD pure x04 ‘A ueWPp]I4

J9UURy “A 1NRSIO

‘OD d0uRINsSU]

pun S$,uRWOdI4 ‘A lNOdUDIIDg

URIRWIEILD ISPOD IIQOH ‘A x04

dUIReN osea

ponunuo) Sol

00$*L00'I

000°090' I

000°S80' I

000°09¢"I

000°00r' I

juNnOowYy

ATYOOM

‘000'¢ ‘OD ‘sul JOqIeEH

SIOIPIOA 000°000'¢$ a

Aine 0} ponilmsy OL/81/ZE A ‘Ouy ‘SuUy JOIO-Z UuRdUOWYy

AT¥9OM

S191ps9 |

| "hang poiusq 9Z/S1/ZE ‘OD “SUT PsoJUeH “A UOTTIQY

ATY9OM

SIIIPsO 000'OS8'e$ és .

ye O} ponlwoay 9¢/Ib/¢ ‘DUT “JOJNVIS-SsoNidq “A NI]OD

juepudsjoq

Joy Aowony

ussueH = YOO ONT IIS . .

‘L AopueH 0} ponlwoy 91/OS/1E SIAR “A BIUIOJI[ED JO yueg

cl st eouowy

a Aang poiuaq SI/Z1/ZE jo yueg “A 1uyjoysurig

ATYOOM

SIOIPsO 000°000'S7$ ;

"aie O} poNlwmsy €/ZS/LE yurg O81e4 STJIAQ “A URTUOD

1Nsoay soseweg ‘Bd/'ON/'[OA OWEN oseD

JO} 90INCS dATNIUNg :3y A[YOOM

UONOW [RUE MIN sloIpssa Aine

jo 1Nsoy

J9AQ PUY 000'O00'I$

SIOIps9A, Aung oseweq dsaniuNg

L86l

O7E'£96'TI

000°000'S I

000'0S6'9 |

9S9°999 CC

000° 0000

JOO OOO'OS$

junOwY

er LS LL ES

ALNOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

LST ‘pPrTl

Pe'ddy je5

LIZ

pue A[yooK

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIIA,

Aine

A[YIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aang

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ALYIOM

SIDIPIOA

Aang

ATION

SIOIPIOA,

Aing

juRpUdJOg

Joy Aowony

ZVAIOH

f SUA

WNsoy

JO} ddINOS

B22

poiusq

poiusg

PS

uONOW ON

000°000'1$

01 poniwsy

porusg

000°00S$

O1 poniwmoy

000°006$

01 poiway

porusg

soseweq

sAtIUNg :9y

UONOW [PUL MON sloipsoa Aung

jo 1Nsoy

SI/6/1E

S7/Ob/0E

SZ/9/1E

I/Ep/O€

O2/Pt/OE

8I/Z/1¢

8/9b/0¢

b7/6£/0€E

‘Bd/'ON/'[0A

ALYOOM

‘OD ‘suy

M4 SMPIG Prluy “A mMazuo07]

PIOWOD “A [[Opey

yuvg jeuodwy “a upeg

‘OUT “IOYRWpooy “a Adpieg

JOJIBYIE “A OFdI[RH

nouukeof ‘A 1utsloD

‘diod s9jshaysy “A urag

‘OD Surysiury pure

BUIDAG WOISIM “A ZONIUpoOy

OWEN oseD

PONUNUOYD 9861

000000" |

O000'OST* |

00061 ¢* |

000'O0S' |

000°009" |

000°006' |

000°000'¢

000000 &

nowy

AIJIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juRpUudsjog

10} Aowony

PISt4s

‘qd Wopoosy,L

ATYOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATYOOMA

SIOIPIIA

Aine

A[YOOM

SIDIPIIA

Aine

juepusjog

10; AQUIONY

ZUAIOH

‘f SIG

A[Y9OM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ety UNO

sousodnsg

JJ MULE Td

10} AguOny

oideys

‘MM [hed

B25

2

ATHOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepUussog

Joy Aswony

Joydoisuy)

‘y woqoy

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepUussog

Joy Aswiony

A|9949W

‘y uaydais

ATION

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

juepusjoq

Joy Aswony

eyOK

‘CW JO172A

€L ‘L9

peddy yep

L1Z

juRpUdJIg

io} Aowony

JOZuIS|[IH

‘Yy 9310905

B24

1Nsoy

JO} a01n0¢S

poquryg 02/8/7E

Suiuesy 0}

oud papas TC/S1/ZE

000'EEEs$

0} poIWsy 61/S1/7€

poius3q 8I/9Z/1E

porusq S7/IE/IE

po1usq TZ/9I/TE

pouely pZ/9Z/IE

000°006$

01 ponimsy p7/L7ie

000°OS7$

0} ponlwMdy S7/9b/1E

poiusq EZ/E/TE

poiusg OI/LE/TE

polusg EZ/OE/TE

CLp'Ll6$

0] poilw3y t/8Z/T1eE

000°00S$

QO] poniwmsy 1/21/Z€

poiusq 8I/6E/1E

000°000°1$

01 poIWwsy 6£/9Z/1E

\

Suuesy 0}

Joud panes OL/I/Z7E

soseweg “Bd/ON/ [OA

sATIUNg :3y A{ OOM

UONOW [RUE MON S}oIps9A Aine

jo 1Nsoy

‘09 adesUOFC

Q0uRII]yW ISJLJ “A SIBZOY

‘OD ‘sul [eWUOUTIUOD “A suRAq

suononpold

B19QploOH-3urjods “A uosuyos

A3199-eQID ‘A sNONOUR'T]

‘05

‘suy Aljensed oo ‘A Ja3uUIS

‘OD ‘sul

jenny, wie seg ‘A Aapinoy

JJOT

® 191ZeID ‘uyeH “A ueUedsey

‘OD ALL URMIIS “A 1B

‘OD Sunjsus

3 Surly Aeg uospny “A ueAIg

eoWOWY YON

jO ‘OD d0uRINSU] ‘A SUIyUDL

‘Quy ‘99q9K

‘A ‘OUT ‘SUNDWRW W+SN

87PI [B90]

‘UOIUL) SYD [leldy A SeBIRA

‘OD ‘SUT BIT

PLOM MON SJOWIeY “A [IZIA

191194 “A [IYO

‘OD ‘sul ulpyuRlj

UUddg [RIUOJOD “A ude

s1opiey PULTYeO “A UIITy

je1dsoy

RISIA BIIDIC “A IRI[IA-[TepuresD

dWEN asked

ponunuod L861

000°000' I

000°000' |

000°000' I

000°000" I

000°00S" I

OOS*9LS"I

000°000'7

000°0S7°7Z

000°067'Z

000°00S*Z

000°O01$*Z

S9L*E09'7

O81 rl6'z

000°000'¢

000°000' +

000°000'S

000°000'S

juNnOWYy

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aing

luepusjog

Joy Asumony

usydais

‘D weITTIA

AT YOON

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATX99M

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

B27

AL YOO

SIOIPIOA

Aing

ATION

SIOIPIIA

Aing

juepUudsjog

Joy Aduiony

sueoW

‘H Adasepy

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juRepUudsjog

Joy Asuiony

ZNAIOH

‘f SUT

ATYIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

B26

Nsoy

1OJ ddINOS

UOHOW [PUL MON

porusq

pouriy

pouriy

poiusq

000°000'°7$

01 poniwmsy

poiusg

poiusq

poqury

000°009$

O1 ponlwsy

000°000°LI$

01 poniwsdy

poiusq

soseweqg

dATIUNg :3y

jo 1[Nsoy

Ee/IZ/te

SI/LI/EE

b7/1b/7E

€7/7b/7E

L1/8/ZE

6/t/EE

6I/E1/EE

ce/LI/EE

91/6b/7E

‘Bd/'ON/10A

AT YOON

SIOIPI9A, Aine

‘Quy ‘90edsoloy ploy “A sUdqoy

‘OUI ‘SOLISNPuy UOISSIP

‘A ‘OUT “CD SPIPt4 “VU

‘OUl “YOO, suRIqWOPF sURApPY

‘A SWOISAS JURIQUID|FW YOY

ezZe[q UOIyIOIg “A URLIWY

Ossey “A ues3ng

osueyoxXy “SUl D1 ‘A J9N0g

osueyoxg

‘SU] SIDWUIR “A NIjOW

‘OD 119MSOg ‘OL ‘A SIBIMK

SIOYIRPY S,UOA “A BunoZ

‘diod ysRwYINOS ‘A dIppry

UPR WIPIN gy

uUrPW OWN ‘A Aemoieg

JWRN ose

J9AQ PUY OO00'O0D'I$

SIDIpI9A. Ainge IBeweQq IautuNng

8861

000°S PO" I

000°00S"I

000°000°Z

000*00S$*Z

000°000'¢

000°000'S

00S*900'S

000‘00S'0I

000°0SL'0I

000°000°S8

000°000' LPL $

jJunOWY

AI YION

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

juepudjog

10} AduIONYy

1o3eid

‘f plaeq

A[YOOM

SIDIPIOA,

Aine

ATYIOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

AT¥IOM

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

A[49OM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

juepUsJIg

Joy AdWIONY

oiuids

‘L wy

ATION

SIDIPI9OA

Aine

ot4 UNO)

Jousdns

B29

a Sr a a

A[ YOON

SIOIPIOA

Aine

AI YOON

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIOA

Aing

juRpUudJIg

1oy Aowony

ZUAIOH

‘f SUI

AI YIOM

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

A[ AION,

SIOIPIOA,

Aine

B28

yNsoy

iO} ddINOS

UONOW [PUL MON

porusq

000‘000'I$

0] pols y

Paty

uOIIOW ON

porusq

porusq

poiusq

000°0S6$

01 ponlwmsy

porusq

000°00S'* I$

01 ponilwsy

poiusq

poiusq

000‘00S$

O1 poiwsy

pojursy

poiusq

000‘00S$

01 ponimsy

poiusq

soseweg

SAINIUNgG :3y

jo 1[Nsoy

S7/7/vt

S7/LE/Et

bO/TL/EE

E7/BE/EE

87/Pl/PE

Z7/SI/PE

ZZ/O1/PE

LI/Lt/ee

ET/8Z/EE

Li/it/ee

L7/6t/tt

97/Ob/Et

67/97/EE

87/S7/EE

[Z/et/ee

61/Sb/Et

‘Bd/'ON/10A

AI ¥IOM

syoipsaaq, Aine

sosudisiuq

ISID ‘A SOLOW -WINN

‘QU] ‘IOIAIIS

ssouIsng gy ‘A uosyore

SIDAFW “A ODDOIDIRG

YdIssopy ‘A [ozuly

yueg jeuodwy

‘A Sjuswedy josnoleD [eUsIS

‘ul

‘sauojesoge’] xodIUAS ‘A 1110110g

wA]4 ‘A JOpry

wystIq “OD ‘A2d ZVO

‘A ‘OD Alireoy usaReH [9g

SIDIAIOS

UpwDg diooniD “A zopueuwis4

‘OD ML ssopunoy “A poominyo

‘oul

‘SOLIISNPU] 1S9IO4 ISOMYINOS

‘A ‘OU ‘[,JUy Ariegng

‘OD ‘wopul w ‘d9y psosyueH

‘A “OUT ““W'N JO Zudg-sopao19~-

‘OD SSOWF I00SOYy “A JOW¥OeH

‘QUI ‘SJOIIUOD UOSUYOL ‘A SoUOs

uospny

yooy jo d1eIsq “A URNISUYD

09

Aywuwopuy wows, “A ueuedsey

aWEN oseD

J9AQ Puy OO0O'OO00'IS

SIOIPIOA Aung ISewed sAiiuNng

6861

000°000'7

000°000°7

000°000°7

000°000°7

000°000°7Z

[87 rl 0°?

000°00%'7Z

000°00S*7Z

000°000'¢

000°000't

000°008"¢

000°00S* b

000°00S's

000°00$"S

000°0S7'L

000°000°Z1$

jUNOUIYy

B30

ATION

SIOIPIIA,

Aing

AT YOON

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATYOOM

SIOIPIOA

Aine

ATION

SIOIPIIA,

Aing

1URpUdJOg

Joy Aswioiy

ZUAIOW

‘f SUG

WNsoy

JOJ d0INOS

pojues?

AONE

pouely

porusq

poiusg

uonow

BUITIJ O}

Joud panes

soseweqg

dAINIUN,G :3y

UOOW JRPUL MON SIOIpPI9A Aine

jo yNnsoy

9/OZ/EE

S7/9E/EE

O£/O1/PE

62/1 b/Ee

92/1 I/e

‘Bd/'ON/‘10A

AT¥IOM

eooWy JO yuRg

‘A “OUT ‘S]JURI[NSUOD URYyeWUIL

dnoip ‘sul sigwuey “A uinog

‘Ouy ‘wuey d3pusddsg “A yor~p

‘OD “SUT DIOeq PouUy “A TIM

YOIQUISIDY “A [OU

QWEN aseD

ponunuoy) 6g6l

000000" I

000°000' I

000°000' I

016°090'I

OOO'8ES*I

junOWY