Punitive Damages Reform: SB 263 (1995)
Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive
Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive damages. Provides that when a jury finds by “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant: (1) acted in “reckless disregard for the rights of others,” the award is limited to the greater of $100,000 or actual damages awarded; or (2) acted intentionally and with malice, the award is limited to $500,000; two times the award of actual damages; or the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing injury. The limit does not apply if the court finds evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally and with malice in conduct life‑threatening to humans.
Latest News
View all news
West Virginia AG Candidates Fail to Sign Transparency Oath
ATRA reports neither candidate for West Virginia Attorney General has signed its transparency oath, writes Chris Dickerson for the West Virginia Record.
Trial Lawyers Treat COVID-19 As Another Feather In Their Caps
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes about trial lawyers’ latest pet project – business interruption lawsuits against insurance companies in the wake of COVID-19.
Transparency On the Back Burner for West Virginia AG Candidates
ATRA reports West Virginia attorney general candidates’ inaction on transparency code pledge.
Utah AG Candidates Vow to Prioritize Transparency by Signing Pledge
ATRA announces two Utah candidates for attorney general signing its AG transparency code pledge.
Trial Lawyers Delight at Prospect of Congress, White House Flip
A Washington controlled by Democrats would be a bonanza for the trial bar, writes W.J. Kennedy for Legal Newsline.
Judge Managing Opioid Lawsuit Under Scrutiny
ATRA President Tiger Joyce dives into controversies surrounding biases of the federal judge overseeing the nation’s opioid MDL for Inside Sources.