Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Advertisements

CHAPTER 6 REVIEW Let the Games Begin
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. COURCHESNE Supreme Court of Connecticut, 262 Conn. 537, 816 A.2d 562 (2003) Case.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. DECK v. MISSOURI 125 S.Ct (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. POHLE v. CHEATHAM Court of Appeals of Indiana, 724 N.E.2d 655 (2000) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. DLUGASH 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. 1977) Case Brief.
Chapter 18: Torts A Civil Wrong
Ch. 5-3 Civil Procedure.
Chapter 16 Lesson 1 Civil and Criminal Law.
A [Drunk] Wolfe at the Door (handling covered combined with uncovered claims) Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP Peter J. Speaker, Esquire Joshua J. Bovender,
Jury Verdict Survey a presentation by: Matt Dow Jackson Walker L.L.P.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BLANTON v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COLBY v. CARNEY HOSPITAL 356 Mass. 527, 254 N.E.2d 407 (1969) Case Brief.
School of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill© 2004 Attorney Fees in Civil Cases Mark Weidemaier District Court Judges Fall Conference.
Civil Law. Sources of American Law Constitutional Law – Supreme law of the land, limits government and defines rights Statutory Law – Written by Legislative.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Case Brief.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION Presented to: BELL & CLEMENTS BELL & CLEMENTS APRIL 4, 2006 S. David Fineman, Esquire S. David.
Business Law. Your neighbor Shana is using a multipurpose woodcutting machine in her basement hobby shop. Suddenly, because of a defect in the two-year.
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act § – Waiver by consumer is void as against public policy, unless: In writing, signed by consumer, Consumer not.
Constitutional challenges to punitive damages o In addition to common law review of punitive damages, SCT has entertained constitutional challenges to.
© 2010 Delmar, Cengage Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Chapter 1 Introduction to Law Jahangir Moini, MD, MPH, CPhT.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BROWN v. SOUTHLAND 620 F.Supp (E.D.Mo. 1985) Case Brief.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES 237 Ga.App. 10, 514 S.E.2d 478 (1999) Case Brief.
Civil Law. The Basics Plaintiff - The party bringing the lawsuit; can be either a private individual, a corporation or a government entity; Plaintiff.
Interactive LAW AND ORDER Chapter 1. Plato ( ? B.C.), a Greek philosopher who studied and wrote in the area of philosophical idealism, said law.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE Supreme Court of Georgia, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LYNCH v. LYNCH 164 Ariz. 127 (1990) Case Brief.
Chapter 18 Intentional Torts. Intentionally With Purpose, done deliberately for a specific reason.
Fri., Oct. 17. amendment 15(a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.
Freedom of Press. “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” – Justice Black (NYTimes vs. U.S.) What does this statement mean?
Libel. Libel and the Court DEFINITION: Written falsehoods that lead to defamation of character (being false AND damaging is key). This is NOT a case of.
INTRO Q & A.  Proofread for spelling, mechanical, or grammatical errors.  If a sentence doesn’t make sense or is unclear, tell them so!  Look at the.
Tues. Nov. 27. terminating litigation before trial 2.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief.
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
 Crime – _______________________________ _______________________________________  Elements of a Crime: › A duty to do or not to do a certain thing ›
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976) Case Brief.
LAW for Business and Personal Use © 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. GRAY Juvenile Court of Ohio, Cuyahoga County. 145 N.E.2d 162 (1957) Case Brief.
Economics of Punitive Damages. Compensatory vs. Punitive Damages Compensatory damages are meant to return the victim to the pre-injury state Punitive.
Equity Law No juries Injunction: a court ruling preventing some action from occurring Declaratory judgment Modification of contract Seventh Amendment:
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of Iowa 695 N.W.2d 23 (2005) Case Brief.
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. FINE v. DELALANDE, INC. 545 F.Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief.
Intentional Torts Chapter 19. Types of Damages Compensatory Damages- money awarded to compensate for monetary loss and pain and suffering Nominal Damages-
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law Highlight the differences between tort law and criminal law How torts developed historically.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
Virginia RULES Teens Learn & Live the Law Introduction to a Virginia Courtroom.
1 REMEDIES CLASS 5. 2 Restatement Torts 909 Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent.
Torts. Homework: read section titled: The Idea of Liability and The Idea of torts: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow - take notes on reading! Pages
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law
THE CASE OF THE MISSING SHOES
ESSENTIAL QUESTION Why does conflict develop?
Intro to a Virginia courtroom
Copyright 2011 Curriculum Technology, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Chapter 6 Test Review Questions.
Chapter 6 Jeopardy Review
STATE v. KINGMAN 463 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1970)
Chapter 6-3 Lesson Objectives
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)
Compensatory Damages Money intended to restore a plaintiff to the position he was in before the injury Methods by which damages are calculated: A plaintiff.
Section 2.2.
Presentation transcript:

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL PURPOSE: This discusses punitive damages.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL CAUSE OF ACTION: The Campbells sued State Farm, their insurance company, for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL FACTS: The Campbell car was attempting to pass on a two-lane highway despite oncoming traffic. The attempted pass resulted in the other driver’s (Ospital) death and left another person (Slusher) permanently disabled. State Farm, the Campbell’s insurer refused Ospital’s and Slusher’s offers to settle for $25,000 each ($50,000 policy limit) and took the case to trial. The jury awarded $185,849 against the Campbells. Initially, State Farm refused to pay, forcing the Campbells to appeal. (continued)

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL Although State Farm paid the entire judgment following the appeal, the Campbells sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial, the court allowed the Campbells to introduce evidence of State Farm’s allegedly fraudulent actions over a twenty-year period to prove that State Farm was engaged in a scheme to enhance its finances by refusing to pay claims. Jury verdict: $2.6 million compensatory damages, $145 million punitive damages.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL ISSUE: Whether, under the circumstances, an award of $145 million in punitive damages, where full compensatory damages are $1 million, is excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL HOLDING: Yes. The punitive award of $145 million was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of the property of the defendant.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL REASONING: The Court stated that the Campbells were improperly allowed to use much evidence about State Farm that was irrelevant. In an earlier case, the Court stated that a court hearing a case concerning punitive damages should consider the following three factors:

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; 2. the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and 3. the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.