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.
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.
ATRA files amicus brief in support of Johnson & Johnson’s decision to appeal a 2019 $465 million judgment against the company, warning against the state attorney general’s expansive use of public nuisance law.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce spoke with Juliette Farley of the Southern California Record about Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week and business interruption lawsuits.