(8th Cir., Filed Feb. 21, 2017): Arguing that above-market prejudgment interest should not be included in the denominator when calculating the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. Above-market prejudgment interest overstates the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff and already serves a punitive function. If the Court concludes that some amount of prejudgment interest should be included in the denominator of the ratio, it should use a market rate for determining the amount and add the balance of the prejudgment interest- the effect of which is entirely punitive-to the numerator.
On August 15, 2017, the court ruled against ATRA’s position and affirmed the award of punitive damages.
This letter-to-the-editor was originally published by The Herald-Dispatch in Huntington, WV. West Virginia was a mainstay on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s “Judicial Hellholes®” list for nearly 20 years, finally […]
This op-ed was originally published by DC Journal – Inside Sources. With Florida’s 2023 legislative session in the rearview mirror, Gov. Ron DeSantis remains under a microscope with pundits and […]
Illinois Businesses Brace for Increased Costs and Diminished Appeal as Trial Bar Pushes for Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Cases
ATRA President Tiger Joyce discusses Florida’s 2023 legal reform successes with Preston Scott on WFLA-FM Tallahassee.
2023 legislative session resulted in landmark legal reforms, ATRF says
ATRA’s Latest Data Reveals $271.8 Million Spent on Legal Services Advertising in Florida in 2022; Florida Accounted for Nearly 20% of Radio Ad Spending Nationwide
