Punitive Damages Reform: SB 263 (1995)
Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive
Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive damages. Provides that when a jury finds by “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant: (1) acted in “reckless disregard for the rights of others,” the award is limited to the greater of $100,000 or actual damages awarded; or (2) acted intentionally and with malice, the award is limited to $500,000; two times the award of actual damages; or the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing injury. The limit does not apply if the court finds evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally and with malice in conduct life‑threatening to humans.
Latest News
View all news
South Carolina Governor Rallies Support for Key Legal Reform Package
Following Press Conference, S.B. 244 Set for Senate Floor Debate and Vote
ATRA Urges Gov. Youngkin to Veto HB 2351, Protect Right to Appeal in Virginia
Proposed Appeal Bond Cap Hike Threatens Fairness and Business Climate, ATRA Says
Trial Lawyer Advertising Soars to $2.5 Billion, Outpacing Pizza Restaurant Ads in Key Markets
New Report from the American Tort Reform Association Exposes Dangers of Aggressive Legal Services Advertising
Georgia Senate Acts to Restore Fairness in Civil Justice System
ATRA Applauds Passage of S.B. 68 to Address Phantom Damages, Jury Anchoring, Seat Belt Evidence Admissibility
ATRA Praises Lawmakers in ‘Judicial Hellhole®’ South Carolina for Pursuit of Tort Reform
Legislation Addresses Unfair Fault Allocation, Provides Juries with More Relevant Information
Maryland’s ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ Lawmakers Aim to Repeal Damage Limits, Increasing Costs for Residents
Marylanders’ Annual $1,731 ‘Tort Tax’ May Increase with Proposed Changes in Annapolis