BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

42 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Punitive Damages Are Available Under General Maritime Law Against Products Liability Defendant

    Liskow & LewisOctober 26, 2017

    25 million on grounds that it was unconstitutionally excessive. In analyzing whether the jury’s punitive damages award crossed the constitutional line, the Court thoroughly analyzed the three guideposts set out in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and also recognized a non-BMW factor traditionally considered by Louisiana courts—the defendant’s wealth—as set forth in Mosing v. Domas, 02-0012 (La. 10/15/02), 830 So. 2d 967, 973. i.Reprehensibility of the Defendant’s Conduct The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that Teleflex’s awareness of the serious risks (ejection and severe injury) that could result from a small loss of hydraulic fluid, yet its failure to warn customers, was reprehensible conduct.

  2. Can the ‘Long-Ago’ Nature of Conduct Bar Punitive Damages — Even for Recent Injuries?

    McGuireWoods LLPMitchell MorrisFebruary 15, 2017

    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003). Punitive damages may be imposed only where they “further a State’s legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition,” BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 (1996) (emphasis added), and run afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they amount to an “arbitrary punishment[] on a tortfeasor.” Campbell, 538 U.S. at 416.

  3. Has Exposure To Punitive Damages Increased In Arizona?

    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.David Stout, Jr.June 29, 2015

    “A grossly excessive punitive damage award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the defendant did not have ‘fair notice’ of its exposure to the extent of punishment that could be imposed.” BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574-75 (1996). When reviewing whether a punitive damages award is excessive, a court must consider the following guideposts: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct, 2) the disparity between plaintiff’s actual or potential harm and the punitive damages award, and 3) the difference between the jury’s punitive damages award and the authorized civil penalties in comparable cases.

  4. “It’s Alive!” The Ninth Circuit Affirms A Hair-Raising Punitive Award To A Title VII Plaintiff Who Suffered No Actual Harm

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPNovember 1, 2013

    The Ninth Circuit’s Holding On AppealOn appeal, the Ninth Circuit evaluated the propriety of the punitive award through the lens of the U.S. Supreme Court’s three “guideposts” for determining unconstitutional excessiveness: (i) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) the ratio of the punitive award to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff (i.e., the dollar value of compensatory and nominal damages awarded); and (iii) the existence of any civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). As to reprehensibility of ASARCO’s conduct, the Ninth Circuit held the minimal magnitude of harm actually inflicted on Aguilar had little bearing on whether ASARCO acted reprehensibly or with reckless disregard for Aguilar’s health and safety.

  5. January 2008

    Outten & Golden LLPJanuary 18, 2008

    "The employer also challenged the size of the punitive damage award in proportion to the actual damages. But in addition to finding that the award met the due process guideposts (BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)), it also observed that the award was well within the caps set under Title VII: "[T]hat the punitive damages award, when aggregated with the compensatory damages award, was substantially below the $300,000 statutory cap on such damages, as provided for by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, provides additional support for the reasonableness and constitutionality of the punitive damages award. The statutory cap of $300,000 provided FedEx with fair notice of the range of available civil penalties for acts of discrimination that contravened the ADA."Wednesday, January 23, 2008The Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 22, invited the Solicitor General to file its views in Hulteen v. AT&T Corp., No. 04-16087 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2007) (see my August 20, 2007 entry on this case).

  6. Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damage Awards

    Warner Norcross & Judd LLPApril 1, 2007

    Notes:1. Case No. 05-1256. 2. 517 U.S. 559 (1996). 3.

  7. District of Oregon Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Near-Billion-Dollar Damages Award for TCPA Violations

    King & SpaldingOctober 5, 2020

    Such limits require courts to consider “the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct,” the “ratio to the actual harm,” and the disparity between “the punitive damages award and the civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574–75 (1996). ViSalus’s argument relied heavily on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 950 (2019), which affirmed the reduction of a $1.6 billion TCPA statutory damages award to $32 million ($10 per call) on due process grounds.

  8. $500,000 Punitive Damages Award in Bad Faith Action Shocks Delaware Court’s Conscience and Justifies New Trial on Liability and Damages

    White and Williams LLPJohn BalaguerMarch 19, 2020

    Apr. 10, 2015) (suggesting ratios over four to one would be unconstitutional). However, identifying no “fixed standard” in any Delaware decision, including Delucia, the court relied on the three guideposts in BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) to evaluate a punitive damages award post-trial:the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct;the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the damages award; andthe difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.First, the evidence against AmGuard supported no more than “recklessness,” the “least egregious” state of mind justifying a punitive damages award. Second, the court noted ratios far less than 17,000 to 1 have been found excessive, and even if the plaintiff never received the $7,300 owed, the potential harm to punitive damages ratio was “grossly disproportionate.”

  9. Punitive Damages: A Brief Comparison of Federal and California Practice [Part 1 of 5]

    McManis FaulknerTyler AtkinsonDecember 4, 2018

    [18] Id. at 418 (citingBMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996)). [19] Id.

  10. Punitive Damages Allowed in Title VII Case Even Where Only Nominal Damages Awarded

    Crenshaw, Ware & Martin PLCElaine I. HoganMarch 27, 2018

    The Ninth Circuit then agreed to rehear the case en banc.The three judge panel had applied the “guideposts” for assessing the constitutionality of a state common law punitive damages award set forth in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and summarized in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003): (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.As the Ninth Circuit explained in its en banc decision, Gore was relevant in its consideration of a punitive damages in a case brought under a federal statute. However, the question was different from that in Gore because it was brought under Title VII and already includes a cap on punitive damages:The landscape of our review is different when we consider a punitive damages award arising from a statute that strictly dictates the standard a jury must apply in awarding punitive damages and narrowly caps hard-to-quantify compensatory and punitive damages.