Willow Inn, Inc. vs. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company
Year 2003
Court U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number 03-2837
Issue
  • Punitive Damages
State
  • Pennsylvania

A punitive damage award that exceeds the Campbell ratio of 9:1 does not violate substantive due process.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by Timothy P. Law, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, PC, and Amy Bach, Esq.
Related Cases
Hale vs. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A092548, A092833
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured’s claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad faith) to first party cases.
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company vs. Rodgers, Tina
Year: 2002
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Kentucky

Punitive damages; public service nature of insurance
Johnson, Greg et al. vs. Ford Motor Company
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121723
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

The permissible ratio of punitive to compensatory damages after Campbell should not be limited to a bright line ratio.
Philip Morris USA vs. Mayola Williams
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 05-1256
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • United States

Review of Court’s previous decisions regarding punitive damages. The Court should not be setting substantive due process standards for punitive damage cases. Lower Courts have interpreted the Court’s opinion in Campbell V. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., as requiring a single digit ratio for…