Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Punitive Damages Appellate Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal also contests punitive-damage amount and asks court to consider guidance on a 'floor' for deterrence
Summary
In the third Duffin appeal, appellant counsel argued punitive damages were too low to deter the defendant given his net worth and asked the Court of Appeals for guidance or de novo review to ensure punitive awards meet deterrence objectives; opposing counsel pointed to statutory and constitutional ceilings and preservation concerns.
The Court of Appeals heard argument on punitive damages in a Duffin appeal in which Brandy's counsel urged the court to scrutinize the punitive award as inadequate to deter misconduct given the defendant's wealth.
Counsel argued that punitive damages should be tailored to a defendant's net worth to achieve deterrence and suggested the court provide practice guidance or a de novo review (or even a floor or ratio guidance) to prevent awards so small they have no deterrent effect. "There has to be some sort of guidance given to the jury essentially telling them that there has to be something commensurate with the individual's ... what they actually have," counsel said.
Opposing counsel responded that existing tiers and constitutional case law impose ceilings and that there is no recognized floor for punitive awards; counsel further argued that counsel had the opportunity to present wealth evidence and that trial protections and remittitur procedures exist.
Judges questioned preservation of challenges and whether the court should draw strict remedial rules in the appellate context or leave such calibrations to trial courts and remittitur doctrine. No ruling was announced from the bench; the panel said it would issue a written opinion addressing the issues raised across the three appeals.
