Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff, but to punish a defendant for intentional or malicious misconduct and to deter similar future misconduct.

The Problem

While punitive damages awards are infrequent, their frequency and size have grown greatly in recent years. More importantly, they are routinely asked for today in civil lawsuits. The difficulty of predicting whether punitive damages will be awarded by a jury in any particular case, and the marked trend toward astronomically large amounts when they are awarded, have seriously distorted settlement and litigation processes and have led to wildly inconsistent outcomes in similar cases.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports state legislation that: establishes a liability “trigger” that reflects the intentional tort origins and quasi‑criminal nature of punitive damages awards ‑ “actual malice;” requires “clear and convincing evidence” to establish punitive damages liability; and requires proportionality in punitive damages so that the punishment fits the offense. ATRA supports federal legislation that addresses the special problem of multiple punitive damages awards. Such legislation would protect against unfair overkill, guard against possible due process violations, and help preserve the ability of future claimants to recover basic out‑of‑pocket expenses and damages for their pain and suffering.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Punitive Damages
MMPA and Punitive Damages Reform – S.B. 224
MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT (MMPA) REFORM A person seeking to recover damages for unlawful merchandising practices shall establish that the p...
Missouri
Punitive Damages Reform: S.F. 1827 (1990)
Provides the following punitive damage reforms a) raises the standard of conduct for punitive damages from the current “willful indifferenceR...
Minnesota
Punitive Damages Reform: H.B. 1 (1987)

Required 75% of all punitive damages awards to be paid to the State Treasury.

Georgia
Punitive Damages Reform: H.B. 1 (1987)
Limited the award of punitive damages to $250,000, except in product liability cases, where only one award of punitive damages can be assessed against...
Georgia
Punitive Damages Reform: H.B. 1369 (1995)

Requires “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or actual malice.

North Dakota
Punitive Damages Reform: S.B. 2351 (1993)
Limits punitive damages to the greater of $250,000 or two times compensatory damages; allows for a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages; ...
North Dakota
Punitive Damages Reform: S.B. 0296 (2006)
Permitted the Attorney General’s office to negotiate and compromise the portion of a punitive damages award that is to be paid to the state. Pro...
Indiana
Punitive Damages: S.B. 421 (2015)
Requires a plaintiff, in order to recover punitive damages, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice ...
West Virginia
Punitive and Compensatory Damages Reform: S.B. 202 (2012)
Eliminates punitive and compensatory damages under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) – a 2009 invention in Wisconsin law.  This forced Wisconsi...
Wisconsin
Punitive Damages Reform: Malicious Conduct: SB 11 (1995).
Requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted “maliciously or in intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff” for the recovery of punit...
Wisconsin


Punitive Damages News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Punitive Damages

Lawmakers Denounced for Pushing Punitive Damages in Last-Minute Amendment

This week, Illinois General Assembly Assistant Majority Leader Jay Hoffman...

ATRA Brief Calls on SCOTUS to Review Near Limitless Per Violation Civil Penalties

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) filed a friend of the court br...

Governor signs law on punitive damages, merchandising act

Governor Mike Parson signed into law changes to the legal make that was ch...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Punitive Damages
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Monsanto v. Durnell
(U.S., filed March 2, 2026): Arguing that requirements for herbicide labeling should not be made case-by-case in litigation sparked by a flawed IARC ...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Cowan v. Dr. Slann et.al.
(N.D., filed February 23, 2026): Arguing that reasonable limits on medical liability improve the health care system for doctors and patients and Nort...
North Dakota
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Oregon Local Legal Services Advertising 2021-2025
Trial lawyers and aggregators increasingly spend large sums of money on television, digital,and print advertising to recruit new clients. In 2025, it...
Oregon
The Junk Science Playbook
The Machine That Sparks and Supports Mass Tort LitigationIntroduction and Executive SummaryMass tort litigation is a sprawling, profit-driven...
Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Fannie Tartt et al.
(GA, filed January 20, 2026): Arguing that traditional tort law and persuasive decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous state high courts do ...
Georgia
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Sanctionable: The unsupported, exaggerated, and suspicious claims plaguing our nation’s courts
There is growing concern that many lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts are unsupported, involve manufactured or exaggerated injuries, or stem from ...
California, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania
Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital et. al.
(OH., filed October 7, 2025): Arguing that the Court should review the lower court’s decision because the Court should comprehensively address the co...
Ohio
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Atlas Turner, Inc. v. Welch
(U.S., filed September 22, 2025): Arguing the Court should review the use of receiverships by the South Carolina asbestos court.  The receivership pr...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Letter to House Judiciary Committee re: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act
This letter was submitted on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association to express our support for H.R. 5437, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce ...
California
Letter to DOJ re: RFI on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Interstate Commerce
Re: Request for Information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Com...



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.