Punitive Damages Award: Purpose, Proof, and Constitutional Limits

In most civil lawsuits, the goal is simple: compensation. The plaintiff seeks to recover financial losses for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. However, when a defendant’s conduct crosses the line from mere negligence to something far more egregious—such as acting with malice, oppression, or a reckless disregard for public safety—the court may award a specialized form of payment: punitive damages.

These damages are reserved for the most serious cases and act as a financial penalty, signaling that the defendant’s behavior is unacceptable to society. They are a core principle of common law in the United States, although their application varies significantly from one state jurisdiction to the next.

The Distinct Purpose: Punishment and Deterrence

It is crucial to understand that the primary function of a punitive damages award is not to compensate the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff is the recipient of the funds. Their sole focus is on the defendant:

• Punishment: To penalize the defendant for intentional or malicious misconduct.
• Deterrence: To make an example of the defendant, discouraging both them and others from engaging in similar dangerous or wrongful conduct in the future.

This is why punitive damages are generally not available in breach of contract claims, but are frequently sought in tort cases involving personal injury, fraud, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. A notable exception is “insurance bad faith” cases, where an insurer’s egregious breach of contract may also be considered an independent tort, making punitive damages possible.

The High Burden of Proof: Clear and Convincing Evidence

Since a punitive damages award carries a quasi-criminal element of punishment, the legal threshold for obtaining them is significantly higher than for standard compensatory damages.

To recover standard compensatory damages, a plaintiff must typically prove their case by a “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning it is more likely than not that the claim is true). For punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove:

1. Clear and Convincing Evidence: This is a heightened burden, requiring evidence that leaves no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn, making it highly probable that the defendant’s conduct warrants punishment.
2. Egregious Conduct: The defendant must have acted with one of the following standards, which vary slightly by state statute:
   • Malice: Conduct intended to cause injury or despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.
   • Oppression: Despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.
   • Fraud: Intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant.
   • Reckless Disregard: Acting with complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or rights, or in the face of a perceived risk that the actions will violate those rights.

Courts often consider factors like the defendant’s awareness of the harm, the duration of the misconduct, and the profitability of the conduct to the defendant. The defendant’s financial status is also highly relevant, as the award must be sufficient to act as an effective deterrent without causing financial devastation.

The Constitutional Limits: Due Process and the Gore Guideposts

Punitive damages awards are subject to constitutional review under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To ensure an award is not arbitrarily excessive, the U.S. Supreme Court established three key “guideposts” in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), which courts must consider when reviewing a punitive award:

State-Specific Damage Caps and Statutory Reform

Because punitive damages are primarily governed by state law, rules surrounding them—particularly the maximum allowable amount—differ widely. Many states, often driven by tort reform efforts, have enacted statutory caps to limit the size of punitive awards.

Plaintiffs pursuing civil litigation must consult with a competent legal expert in their jurisdiction to understand the specific rules, burden of proof, and any applicable statutory limits that may affect the potential recovery of punitive damages.

Summary: Three Pillars of a Punitive Damages Award

Key Takeaways for Your Civil Case

1. Intent: Punitive damages are solely for punishment and deterrence of the defendant’s outrageous or malicious conduct, not for compensating the plaintiff for a loss.
2. Proof Standard: The plaintiff must prove the defendant’s egregious conduct by “clear and convincing evidence,” a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence” typically required in civil cases.
3. Constitutional Limit: The U.S. Supreme Court requires courts to review the award size based on three factors, most notably the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, generally signaling that few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio (e.g., 9:1) will withstand scrutiny.
4. State Variance: State laws on punitive damages differ significantly. Many states impose statutory caps, either as a multiple of compensatory damages or a fixed dollar amount, while a few states prohibit caps entirely.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Common Inquiries About Exemplary Damages

Q1: Are punitive damages awarded in all successful civil cases?

No. Punitive damages are only awarded in a small fraction of civil cases—around 5-6% of those resulting in a monetary award—and are reserved for situations where the defendant’s conduct was egregious, malicious, or reckless.

Q2: Can I get punitive damages for a breach of contract?

Generally, no. Punitive damages cannot be awarded for a simple breach of contract. However, an exception exists if the breach is accompanied by an independent tort, such as a claim of bad faith or fraud, where the conduct is found to be egregious.

Q3: How is the amount of a punitive damages award determined?

The amount is determined by the jury or judge based on the degree of the defendant’s reprehensibility, the defendant’s financial condition (to ensure a deterrent effect), and the ratio of the punitive award to the compensatory damages. State-mandated caps may ultimately limit the final award.

Q4: What is the highest ratio of punitive to compensatory damages that is constitutional?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not set a precise limit, but it has repeatedly signaled that few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio (like 9:1) between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy constitutional due process.

Q5: Do government entities face punitive damages?

No, punitive damages are generally not available against municipalities, counties, or other governmental entities, unless expressly authorized by statute.

***

Contact a local legal expert to discuss the specific merits of your claim.

Punitive Damages, Exemplary Damages, Compensatory Damages, Tort Law, Civil Litigation, Malice, Oppression, Fraud, Reckless Conduct, Clear and Convincing Evidence, Due Process, Damage Caps, Reprehensibility, State Farm v. Campbell