Extraterritoriality and Punitive Damages: Is There a Workable System?

By Hull, Cordell A. | Defense Counsel Journal, October 2003 | Go to article overview

Extraterritoriality and Punitive Damages: Is There a Workable System?


Hull, Cordell A., Defense Counsel Journal


The U.S. Supreme should speak more definitively on the extent to which conduct in other instances and net worth may be used against defendants

OVER THE last decade, there has been a marked shift in the manner in which American courts award punitive damages. While it remains a goal of the judicial system to maintain the two-fold purpose of punitive damages-punishment of the offending party and deterrence of others-the U.S. Supreme Court recently laid down rules in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell1 that such damages may be awarded only if the defendant's constitutional rights are protected. Defendants facing punitive damages must have procedural and substantive due process protections to ensure against the arbitrary deprivation of property.

What factors are juries to consider in assessing and later appellate courts in reviewing punitive damages awards? To what extent may conduct outside the relevant jurisdiction be considered? This conduct is commonly referred to as constituting the "extraterritoriality" considerations. The State Farm decision answered some of the questions regarding extraterritoriality, but allowed others to remain-specifically, whether and to what extent juries may consider a defendant's wealth in computing punitive damages, and the decision's applicability to products liability cases.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

A. In the Beginning

In American law, the concept of punitive damages has been recognized as "a well-established principle of common law."2 In its earlier jurisprudence, the Supreme Court left the regulation of punitive damages awards to state legislatures and the discretion of judges and jurors in state courts. But in 1986 in Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie,3 it intimated that it would begin to review punitive damages awards based on due process. While the Court disposed of the case on alternative grounds, it noted that Aetna's due process arguments relating to the punitive damages award "raise important issues which, in an appropriate setting, must be resolved."4

One of the Court's first opportunities post-Lavoie came in 1989 in Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont Inc. v. Kelco Disposal Inc.,5 in which the Court held that a punitive damages award is not subject to invalidation under the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, which, the Court ruled, is applicable only to criminal sanctions. Then the Court began holding that the imposition of punitive damages must conform to both procedural (Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg)6 and substantive (BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore)7 due process requirements. In Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip8 and TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.,9 the Court began to examine the size of punitive awards compared to the compensatory award. While it upheld the punitives in both cases, it noted some uneasiness and concerns about due process and the uneven ratios of punitive to compensatory damages.

B. BMW and Cooper Industries

In 1996 in BMW, the Court finally articulated a due process framework within which judges could work in considering punitive damage awards and invalidated an award that was "grossly excessive" in relation to compensatory damages.

The plaintiff in BMW sued the carmaker after learning that his new car had been repainted, a common practice by BMW. He sued in Alabama state court based on fraud, alleging that the repainting diminished the car's value by some $4,000. The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding him that amount but tacking on $2 million in punitive damages. Recognizing "elementary notions of fairness," the Court held that a person must receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but also of the severity of the penalty that a state may impose, the Court invalidated the punitive award.

BMW was not "on notice" of the severity of the punishment, the Court stated, and it set out three "guideposts" for lower courts to consider in awarding punitive damages: (1) "the degree of the reprehensibility" of the harm; (2) "the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by" the plaintiff and the amount of punitive damages; and (3) "the difference between [the punitive damages] remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Extraterritoriality and Punitive Damages: Is There a Workable System?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.