10 Cited authorities

College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court
8 Cal.4th 704 (Cal. 1994) Cited 528 times 1 Legal Analyses
Summarizing amendments
Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
25 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 258 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages
Lackner v. North
135 Cal.App.4th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 164 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ski resort has no duty to eliminate or protect a recreational skier from a collision with a participant in a snowboarding race and that the resort had no duty to supervise the race participants as they warmed up on a designated training run prior to a competition
Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979) Cited 240 times
In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.
American Airlines v. Sheppard
96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 106 times
Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"
Silberg v. California Life Ins. Co.
11 Cal.3d 452 (Cal. 1974) Cited 201 times
Holding that, as a matter of law, the insurer violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it chose to wait until worker's compensation proceeding was concluded before it paid or denied the plaintiff's claim
Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
175 Cal.App.4th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism
G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court
49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 131 times
In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.
Jackson v. Johnson
5 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 42 times
Invalidating punitive damages award where the jury "assess[ed] damages in the sum of 0 dollars."
Brousseau v. Jarrett
73 Cal.App.3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) Cited 38 times
Holding that the "conclusory characterization of defendant's conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent" was "patently insufficient" to support the recovery of punitive damages

Nazita Gaff vs. Ariyas Incorporated

10 Cited authorities

Summarizing amendments

Holding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages

Holding that a ski resort has no duty to eliminate or protect a recreational skier from a collision with a participant in a snowboarding race and that the resort had no duty to supervise the race participants as they warmed up on a designated training run prior to a competition

In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

Holding that, as a matter of law, the insurer violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it chose to wait until worker's compensation proceeding was concluded before it paid or denied the plaintiff's claim

Holding that punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism

In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.

Invalidating punitive damages award where the jury "assess[ed] damages in the sum of 0 dollars."

Holding that the "conclusory characterization of defendant's conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent" was "patently insufficient" to support the recovery of punitive damages