# Amicus Curiae Brief — Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0717%3A30 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1991 - **Citation:** 499 U.S. 1 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0717%3A30. Public record. Not legal advice.