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
Punitive Damages Reform: Clear and Convincing Evidence: H 2610 (1988): S.C. Code Ann. § 15-33-135.

Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence.

South Carolina
Punitive Damages Reform: H. 3775 (2011).
Establishes procedure to claim punitive damages: (1) plaintiff must specifically plead for punitive damages in the complaint but may not specify an am...
South Carolina
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 2210 (1996).
Limits punitive damages to 200% of compensatory awards.  Raises the standard of defense in punitive damage cases to “willful or wanton misconduct or r...
Pennsylvania
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 482 (1995).
Requires 40% of punitive damages awards to be paid to the prevailing party, 60% to the state fund, and no more than 20% to the attorney of the prevail...
Oregon
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 323 (1987).
Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence.  Provides an FDA standards defense to punitive damages. ...
Oregon
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 263 (1995)
Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive damages.  Provides that when a jury finds by “clear and convincing” evidence that th...
Oklahoma
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 488 (1986).
Limits the award of punitive damages to the award of compensatory damages unless the plaintiff establishes her case by “clear and convincing” evidence...
Oklahoma
Punitive Damages Over-the-Counter Drugs and Medical Devices: AM Sub SB 80 (2004); ORC Ann. 2305.10.
Provides that manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs and medical devices are not liable for punitive damages if the FDA approved the product.  This w...
Ohio
Punitive Damages Reform Bifurcated Trial: AM Sub SB 80 (2004).
Provides that in jury trials, if punitive damages are requested by any party, the trial is bifurcated so that the jury considers compensatory damages ...
Ohio
Punitive Damages Reform: AM Sub SB 80 (2004); ORC Ann. 2315.12.
Limits punitive damages to not more than two times compensatory damages.  Limits punitive damages for small businesses to the lesser of two times comp...
Ohio


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
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Carey, II et. al.
(KY., filed August 26, 2025) : Arguing that in a wide range of cases, identification of suspicious claims activity has led to investigations that hav...
Kentucky
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Comment on “A Critical Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” Report
This comment is on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), a broad-based coalition of businesses, associations, and professional firms...
Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
(Pa. App., filed June 23, 2025): Arguing that trial courts must zealously ensure the integrity and fairness of the jury system throughout the trial p...
Pennsylvania
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech Inc.
(E.D. Va., filed August 15, 2025): Arguing that Plaintiffs urge an unprecedented theory that a defendant can violate antitrust law by incidentally a...
Eastern District of Virginia
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Berk v. Choy
(U.S., filed August 7, 2025): Arguing that State legislatures enacted affidavit of merit statutes to prevent meritless lawsuits that threaten the ava...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
U.S. ex rel. Penelow v. Janssen Products LP.
(3rd Circ., filed July 21, 2025): Arguing that the qui tam provisions violate Article II’s vesting clause, the Appointments Clause, and the Take Care...
3rd Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Anne Arundel County v. Express Scripts
(Md., filed May 29, 2025): Arguing that the Court should join other states in affirming that public nuisance law cannot be converted into an all-enco...
Maryland
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Geico Casualty Company v. Jilianne Warner, et. al.
(Ky. App., filed May 28, 2025): Arguing that the court erred in finding that heavy motor trucks, such as tow trucks, are inherently dangerous.  The t...
Kentucky
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Monsanto v. Durnell
(U.S., filed May 9, 2025): Arguing that the Missouri Court of Appeals and other appellate courts have gutted FIFRA’s express preemption provision, al...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 
(Pa. App., filed June 23, 2025) Arguing that trial courts must zealously ensure the integrity and fairness of the jury system throughout the trial pr...



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.