Torts Commons^™

Uninsured Motorist Insurance Now Covers Punitive Award - Hutchinson V. J.C. Penny Casualty Insurance Company, Dale Katzenmeyer

Akron Law Review

A split of authority exists among the few states which have decided the issue In jurisdictions permitting recovery of punitive damages, uninsured motorist coverage is intended to place the insurer in the shoes of the uninsured tortfeasor. Since the insurer stands in the shoes of the tortfeasor, and since punitive damages could be covered if the tortfeasor had his own insurance, it is illogical to deny the victim punitive damages simply because the tortfeasor is uninsured. Other jurisdictions believe that punitive damages should not be awarded since that award would not operate to punish the tortfeasor and would therefore violate …

Assessing The Insurance Role Of Tort Liability After Calabresi, W. Kip Viscusi, Joni Hersch

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Calabresi’s theory of tort liability (1961) as a risk distribution mechanism established insurance as an objective of tort liability. Calabresi’s risk-spreading concept of tort has provided the impetus for much of the subsequent development of tort liability doctrine, including risk-utility analysis and strict liability. Calabresi’s analysis remains a powerful basis for modern tort liability. However, high transactions costs, correlated risks, catastrophic losses, mass toxic torts, shifts in liability rules over time, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages affect the functioning of tort liability as an insurance mechanism. Despite some limitations of tort liability as insurance, tort compensation serves both a compensatory …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

Debunking The Myth That Insurance Coverage Is Not Available Or Allowed For Intentional Torts Or Damages, Christopher French

Journal Articles

Over the years, a myth has developed that insurance coverage is not available or allowed for intentional injuries or damage. This myth has two primary bases: one, the “fortuity” doctrine, which provides that insurance should only cover losses that happen by chance; and two, public policy, which allegedly disfavors allowing insurance for intentional injuries or damage. This article dispels that myth. Many types of liability insurance policies expressly cover intentional torts including trademark infringement, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, defamation, disparagement, and improper employment practices such as discrimination. In addition, punitive damages, which typically are awarded for intentional misconduct, are …

Debunking The Myth That Insurance Coverage Is Not Available Or Allowed For Intentional Torts Or Damages, Christopher French

Christopher C. French

Whiten V. Pilot Ins. Co.: The Unofficial Death Of The Independent Wrong Requirement And Official Birth Of Punitive Damages In Contract, Yehuda Adar Dr.

Yehuda Adar Dr.

Three years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its controversial decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. In that case, the Court affirmed an almost unprecedented punitive damage award by a jury of one million dollars against an insurance company. More importantly, the Whiten decision appears to be the first attempt by the Supreme Court to construct a comprehensive set of rules and principles in light of which punitive damages cases should be decided in the future. While the extraordinary monetary sanction upheld by the Court has attracted much attention in legal and commercial circles, it seems …

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell: Refining Bmw Of North America, Inc. V. Gore And Further Restricting Punitive Damages, Bridget E. Leonard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Not So Peaceful Coexistence: Inherent Tensions In Addressing Tort Law Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As Professor Michael Green's comments trenchantly remind us, all of this has a familiar ring: insurers and tort defendants claim unfairly escalating liability, plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer groups counterattack, and (for the most part), insurers and defendants obtain some of the relief they seek. The tort reform victories are not so overwhelming as to completely unravel the historical rights of victims or the power of courts generally, but some constriction of rights inevitably occurs. During periods of quiescence, plaintiffs and consumers take back some lost territory through common law victories expanding claimant rights, or through specific legislation. Statutes that permitted …

The Insurability Of Punitive Damages In Washington: Should Insureds Who Engage In Intentional Misconduct Reap The Benefit Of Their "Bargains?", Stephanie L. Grassia

Seattle University Law Review

This Note examines the issue of the insurability of punitive damages, concluding that insurance coverage should not be allowed for punitive damages arising from intentional misconduct because such coverage contravenes public policy in the state of Washington. Part I defines and provides background for punitive damages and malicious prosecution. Part II outlines and synthesizes the treatment of the insurability of punitive damages in various states. The facts of the Fluke case, including the Court of Appeals's rationale that insurance coverage for punitive damages is not against public policy in Washington, are detailed in Part III. The next section reveals the …

Punitive Damages: Punishment Of An Insured Defendant?, Carroway V. Johnson, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile collision and was awarded a judgment in the amount of $5,000 actual damages and $1,500 punitive damages. The defendant's insurance company had refused to defend her in that action or to pay the judgment obtained, relying upon an employee exclusion clause in the policy. The plaintiff thereupon sued the defendant on the judgment, this time joining the insurer as a co-defendant, and won a verdict to recover against the insurer the aforesaid amount. The insurance company appealed, questioning its liability for punitive damages.