See the full video at https://rumble.com/ve5ycd-a-video-explaining-the-application-of-campbell-v.-state-farm-to-punitive-da.html? mref = 6zof & mrefc = 2 and at https://youtu.be/gLXRBMMm1i4  I State Farm Mut. Car. Ins. Co. v.Campbell (2003) 538 US 408, the United States Supreme Court held that “” the most important indication of the reasonableness of a criminal offense is the degree of blame for the defendant's conduct. "" (Id. On p. 419.) In addition, the Supreme Court in Campbell noted that its "possession that a recidivist can be punished more severely than a first criminal recognizes that repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of misconduct. . ””
In California, punitive damages have long been part of traditional state tort law. [ Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip (1991) 499 US 1, 15, 111 S.Ct. 1032 , 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (Haslip)] and the states have "broad discretion" with regard to their introduction, but since a state's system for awarding punitive damages may deprive a defendant of a fair notice of the seriousness of the punishment imposed by a state may impose and threaten arbitrary penalties, the Supreme Court of the United States has found that the Constitution imposes certain limits, both in terms of procedures for granting criminal damages and amounts that are prohibited as grossly excessive. [ Philip Morris USA v Williams (2007) 549 U.S. Pat. 346, 352–353, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (Williams).)
Although the Supreme Court refused to impose a light relationship that a criminal damages cannot exceed, the U.S. Supreme Court, governed by this history, concluded that practice, few awards that exceed a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy the competent process. Following the Supreme Court's guidance, the California Supreme Court declared that “the relationship between criminal damages and plaintiff's actual or potential damages greater than 9 or 10 to 1 is suspicious and, in the absence of specific justification, cannot survive appeals under due process clause. [ Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363, 371 P.3d 242, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 23 (Cal., 2016)
© 2021 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now he limits his practice to working as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, cheating and insurance fraud almost equally for insurance companies and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.
For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claims staff to become professional in insurance claims.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma ; Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/ posts; and Read the last two issues of ZIFL here.