Punitive Damages Reform: HB 442 (1987): Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5).
Requires a plaintiff to show by “clear and convincing” evidence
Requires a plaintiff to show by “clear and convincing” evidence that a defendant acted with “actual fraud” or “actual malice.” Requires the determination of awards for punitive damages to be made in a separate proceeding. Permits the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s net worth only during the proceeding for the determination of punitive damages. Requires a judge to review all punitive damages awards and to issue an opinion on his decision to increase or decrease an award, or to let it stand.
New Poll Finds Strong Bipartisan Support for Government Action vs. Litigation When it Comes to Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic
While COVID-19 relief efforts stall in Congress, public support for aid to small businesses and others impacted by the pandemic remains high. According to a new survey released today by […]
Missouri Supreme Court declines to review billion-dollar award against Johnson & Johnson baby powder
Juliette Fairley of the St. Louis Record reports on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision not to review a $2 billion verdict.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce penned an op-ed for Law360 on the surge of COVID-19-related lawsuits targeting the insurance industry.
ATRA praises the passage of HB 6030 in Michigan, enacting COVID-19 liability protections.
ATRA’s statement on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Hammons v. Ethicon to allow an out-of-state lawsuit to continue, openly defying SCOTUS precedent.