For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Insurance

May 25, 2016

Presenting persuasive evidence of punitive damages

Review general principles regarding proving punitive damages, including a few concepts and analyses from a recent case that should be fair game for use in the future.

Rex Heeseman

JAMS

555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055

Phone: (213) 253-9772

Fax: (213) 620-0100

Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com

Stanford Univ Law School

Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.

See more...

This article reviews general principles regarding proving punitive damages and then goes over the unpublished portion of Vardanyan v. AMCO Ins. Co., F069953, (5th App. Dist., January 2016). Specific references to that portion cannot be cited in a brief or at oral argument (see CRC 8:115(a)), but the concepts and analyses therein should be "fair game" for use in another case. (The published portion of this decision, emphasizing efficient proximate cause, is found at 243 Ca...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Insurance

Vardanyan v. Amco Insurance Co.

Trial court's intended jury instruction violates efficient proximate cause doctrine, warranting reversal of grant of directed verdict in insurer's favor.

Torts

Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (Trejo)

Manufacturer’s willful conduct in drug labeling raises triable issue of fact where manufacturer had knowledge of drug's side effects but failed to modify label.

Insurance

Shade Foods Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing Inc.

In bad faith lawsuit, punitive damages award is excessive where insurer's conduct does not amount to conscious disregard for insured's rights.

Employment Law

Davis v. Kiewit Pacific Co.

Female employee may continue to demand additional damages from her employer based on inadequate portable toilets for women at her job site.

Employment Law

Roby v. McKesson Corp.

Evidence of supervisor’s personnel management decisions is admissible to prove harassment so long as decisions were made to convey harassing message.

Insurance

Major v. Western Home Insurance Co.

Additional coverage increases coverage limits home insurance company is contractually bound to pay under terms of policy.

Insurance

Buss v. Superior Court (Transamerica Insurance Co.)

Insurer seeking defense costs reimbursement under standard commercial general liability policy has preponderance proof burden.

Civil Procedure

Kelly v. Haag

Without evidence of defendant's actual financial condition at time of trial, any award of punitive damages is unsupported by substantial evidence and excessive.

Civil Procedure

Baxter v. Peterson

Court's reversal and remand on issue of fraud liability does not require retrial of statute of limitations defense.

Corporations

White v. Ultramar Inc.

A 'managing agent' is one who has substantial independent authority to determine corporate policy, not just the ability to hire and fire employees.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.