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: FDA-Approved Drugs: SB 1453 (1989).

Establishes a government standards defense to punitive damages for FDA-approved drugs.

Arizona
Punitive Damages Reform: Clear and Convincing Evidence: Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 675 (Ariz. 1986).

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

Arizona
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 1038 (2003).
Raises the standard for the imposition of punitive damages to “clear and convincing” evidence of actual fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct an...
Arkansas
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 137 (1999)
Limits the award of punitive damages in most non-physical injury cases to the greater of three times the award of compensatory damages or $500,000.  L...
Alabama
Punitive Damages Reform: (1987): Ala. Code § 6-11-20.
Requires a plaintiff to show by “clear and convincing” evidence that a defendant acted with “wanton” conduct for the recovery of punitive damages.  Li...
Alabama
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 58 (1997).
Limits the award of punitive damages in most cases to the greater of three times the award of compensatory damages or $500,000.  Limits the award of p...
Alaska
Punitive Damages Reform: SB 337 (1986).

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

Alaska
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 729 (1995): N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 10-15(b), 1D‑25 .
Limits the award of punitive damages to the greater of three times the award of compensatory damages or $250,000, unless the defendant caused the inju...
North Carolina


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
In re National Opiate Litigation
(Oh., filed January 8, 2024): Arguing that the Ohio Product Liability Act, as amended in 2005 and2007, supersedes this Court’s divided opinion in City...
Ohio
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Coinbase Inc. v. Suski
(U.S., filed December 22, 2023) Arguing that the effect of a subsequent contract on a prior arbitration agreement that remains in effect is a question...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Peninsula Pathology Associates v. American International Industries
(4th Circuit, filed December 20, 2023): Arguing courts must separate sound science from made-for-litigation results.  For courts to diligently exercis...
4th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Alonzo v. John
(Tex., filed December 8, 2023): Arguing that a Court majority opinion should clearly prohibit unsubstantiated anchoring, which produces nuclear verdic...
Texas
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
McKinney v. Goins
(N.C., filed in November 2023): Arguing that the state’s reviver legislation for certain types of claims is unconstitutional. ...
North Carolina
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In re Purdue Pharma LLP
(U.S., filed October 27, 2023): Arguing that the bankruptcy code authorizes courts to approve nonconsensual third-party release and that third-party r...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Comment in Support of Proposed Amendment to Ohio Rule of Evidence 702
ATRA supports the proposed amendment to more closely align Ohio ATRA supports the proposed amendment to more closely align Ohio Rule of Eviden...
Ohio
Testimony on Proposed New Rule 16.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Outline of American Tort Reform Association Testimony Regarding Proposed New Outline of American Tort Reform Association Testimony R...
Trial Lawyer Playbook Report
Executive Summary In the dynamic landscape of Capitol Hill discussions and evolving policy debates, one topic has emerged as a pivotal concern – ̶...
Rodriguez v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana
(TX, filed September 22, 2023): Arguing that the plain language of Chapter 542A forecloses attorneys’ fees where the amount to be awarded in the judgm...
Texas
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position



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.