To visit the Butler Snow Coronavirus Hub, click here.

Survey on Punitive Damages

DAMAGE(S) CONTROL

Imagine that your company has just released the latest miracle drug. You have gone through all of the testing, complied with all federal and state regulations, and poured countless hours and dollars into research and marketing. But like every drug, it may come with risks. A group of patients develops a side effect – and decides to sue. If these suits are asking for punitive damages, what is your next step?

In April, pharmaceutical companies worldwide stopped at the news of a bombshell jury verdict of $9 billion in punitive damages against pharmaceutical company Takeda.1 This verdict came as quite a shock after judgments had been entered in the defendant’s favor in three previous Actos trials. While the award will likely be decreased on appeal, the damage is done as the large punitive damages award has received an onslaught of media attention.

Punitive damages are every defendant’s worst nightmare. The purpose of punitive damages is to “punish” and “deter” defendants from wrongful behavior. Although there are states that require a high degree of reckless and intentionally wrongful behavior in order to allow a punitive damages claim, others are much more generous with their handling of punitive damages.

So what does this mean for you? It means that it is more critical today than ever to be knowledgeable about the subject matter of punitive damages. Which states cap punitive damages awards, and which do not? In which states can punitive damages be claimed from the beginning, and which states require plaintiffs to make a later amendment to the claim? Knowledge of these procedures could save your company time and money in the long run. Could you be safe from punitive damages because you complied with federal regulations? Some state statutes provide that very protection. It is important to know how each state controls punitive damages to know how best to protect your company and yourself. This article surveys all 50 states, providing the primary rule governing the status of punitive damages along with other helpful information.

ALABAMA: Alabama Code Section 6-11-20 allows punitive damages to be awarded in wrongful death actions. In other tort actions, punitive damages are only allowed “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant consciously or deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness or malice.”2 Alabama generally imposes a limit on punitive awards of $500,000 or three times compensatory damages, whichever is greater.3

ALASKA: Alaska Statute Section 09.17.020 allows an award of punitive damages if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous or evidenced reckless indifference to others. Punitive damages may be available even without actual damages as an essential element of the claim.4 If an award of punitive damages is granted, 50 percent of the award must be deposited into the general fund of the state.5 Alaska generally imposes a limit on punitive awards of $500,000 or three times compensatory damages, whichever is greater.6

ARIZONA: In Arizona, punitive damages are allowed if proven by clear and convincing evidence.7 Manufacturers, service providers and sellers are exempt from punitive damages when their product or service complies with state or federal laws and regulations, with some exceptions or fraud, bribery and noncompliance.8 There are no statutory caps on punitive damages awards.9

ARKANSAS: Arkansas Code Section 16-55-206 provides the state’s standard for punitive damages. Plaintiffs seeking a punitive award must prove compensatory damages, along with aggravating factors showing malice or reckless indifference, by clear and convincing evidence.10 Although the Arkansas state legislature enacted a cap on punitive damages awards, the cap was ruled unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court under Article 5, Section 32 of Arkansas’s Constitution for limiting recovery outside of the employment relationship.11

CALIFORNIA: In California, punitive damages are available when a plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.12 Punitive damages are generally not available in wrongful death actions in California. 13 Although California has statutory caps for punitive damages, they are applicable only in very specific circumstances.14

COLORADO: Colorado Revised Statute Section 13-21-102 allows for punitive damages in actions involving fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct. Unlike many states, Colorado requires punitive damages to be proven only beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by clear and convincing evidence.15 Generally, there is a soft cap on punitive damages – the amount should not exceed the amount of compensatory damages – but a court may increase the punitive damages award up to three times the amount of compensatory damages in certain situations.16 Further, the court may reduce the punitive award if the deterrent effect has been achieved, the punitive conduct has ceased or the purpose of the damages has been served in some other way.17

CONNECTICUT: Various Connecticut statutes permit an award of punitive damages. For example, Section 52-240b of the General Statutes of Connecticut permits punitive damages in product liability actions where the seller exhibited “reckless disregard” for the safety of others, but the award is limited to twice the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Punitive damages awarded through common law in Connecticut are generally limited to attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs.18 The conduct to justify an award of punitive damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.19

DELAWARE: Multiple Delaware statutes provide punitive damages for various claims. For example, in medical malpractice claims, Delaware Code Title 18 Section 6855 limits an award of punitive damages to injury that “was maliciously intended or was the result of willful or wanton misconduct,” and further requires a separate finding of compensatory damages. When not specifically provided for by statute, punitive damages may be allowed where the defendant’s conduct has an element of ill will, is motivated by malice or fraud, or is intended to cause injury.20 In Delaware, punitive damages are not allowed in wrongful death actions.21

FLORIDA: Sections 768.72 and 768.725 of the Florida Statutes provide that a defendant may only be held liable for punitive damages if it is proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. Punitive damages awards are generally limited to three times the amount of compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.22 Some circumstances, however, allow the fact finder to award a higher amount, including no cap where it is determined that the defendant had specific intent to harm the claimant.23

GEORGIA: In Georgia, punitive damages are awarded in tort actions (but not in wrongful death actions) where the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression or conscious indifference to consequences.24 There is no cap on the punitive damages award for products liability actions, actions which were intended to cause harm, or acts in which drugs or alcohol are involved.25 For other causes of action, the maximum amount that may be awarded in punitive damages is $250,000.26

HAWAII: The common law of Hawaii allows punitive damages in most situations, although it is currently unclear if wrongful death actions may provide a punitive damages award. Hawaii statutes specify certain areas, such as civil rights violations, damage to public utilities, etc., in which punitive damages will be available.27 Further, the legislature has set out certain areas in which punitive damages are not allowed. For situations in which punitive damages are recoverable, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted wantonly, maliciously or oppressively.28 There are no statutory caps on punitive damages awards in Hawaii.

IDAHO: According to Idaho Code Section 6-1604, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous. Further, punitive damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages.29

ILLINOIS: In Illinois, a plaintiff may seek punitive damages if he establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support the damages.30 To recover punitive damages, the action must have been “committed with fraud, malice, deliberate violence or oppression,” or the defendant must have acted willfully or with wanton disregard for others.31 The Illinois legislature once sought to limit the amount of punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages, but the Illinois Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional.32

INDIANA: In Indiana, a claim for punitive damages requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.33 The maximum amount a plaintiff can receive from a punitive damages award is three times the compensatory damages or $50,000, whichever is greater.34 Further, 75 percent of the punitive damages awarded must be given to the state.35 In a recent opinion by the Supreme Court of Indiana, these statutes were held constitutional.36

IOWA: According to Iowa Code Section 668A.1, the conduct of the defendant must be proven by a preponderance of clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence to constitute willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. If the fact finder determines that the defendant’s conduct was specifically directed toward the injured party, the full amount of punitive damages awarded will be paid to the claimant.37 If not, 25 percent of the amount will be paid to the claimant with the remainder paid to the state.38

KANSAS: In Kansas, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with willful or wanton conduct, fraud or malice.39 The cap on punitive damages provides that the award may not exceed the annual gross income earned by the defendant or $5 million, whichever amount is less.40

KENTUCKY: Various Kentucky statutes, including the wrongful death statute, allow a plaintiff to recover punitive damages.41 To obtain punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice by clear and convincing evidence.42 There appear to be no statutory caps to punitive damages in Kentucky.

LOUISIANA: Punitive damages are only allowed in Louisiana when specifically authorized by statute, such as for bodily injuries caused by intoxicated drivers, for the unlawful interception of wire communications and others.43 The conduct required to recover punitive damages and the burden of proof with which the damages are analyzed vary depending on which specific statute authorized the damages.

MAINE: Various Maine statutes authorize punitive damages. For example, the wrongful death statute allows for punitive damages but limits the award to $250,000.44 Maine requires malice, either express or implied, as an element of a punitive damages award, and requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.45 Only in very specific circumstances do statutes limiting the recovery of punitive damages apply.46

MARYLAND: Various Maryland statutes authorize punitive damages, including actions alleging personal injury.47 Although the Maryland wrongful death statute does not preclude punitive damages, Maryland courts have refused to allow them in wrongful death actions. Actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence in order to support a claim for punitive damages.48 Maryland’s wrongful death statute does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages.49

MASSACHUSETTS: Punitive damages are only permitted in Massachusetts when specifically allowed by statute.50 Punitive damages are allowed in wrongful death cases when the plaintiff can prove the defendant’s conduct was malicious, willful, wanton or reckless.51 The conduct required to recover punitive damages varies depending on which specific statute authorized the damages. Although Massachusetts does not impose a cap on recoverable punitive damages, the amount of a punitive award is reviewed by the court for reasonableness.52

MICHIGAN: Michigan law does not typically allow punitive damages awards.53 Exemplary damages are available, however, in limited circumstances, such as to compensate the victim in an intentional tort case for humiliation, sense of outrage, etc.54 Exemplary damages are only available in instances when the defendant’s conduct is willful, wanton or malicious.55

MINNESOTA: Minnesota Statute Section 549.191 generally allows for punitive damages, but a plaintiff must later file a motion to amend a complaint to include a request for punitive damages. Minnesota’s limitation on punitive damages, then, is limited to the plaintiff’s ability to set forth prima facie evidence supporting a motion to amend the pleadings to set forth a claim for punitive damages.56 Once properly pled, to obtain an award of punitive damages, a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant expressed a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.57

MISSISSIPPI: To be awarded punitive damages in Mississippi, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant “acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.”58 An award of compensatory damages is required before determining whether punitive damages may be considered.59 Section 11- 1-65(3)(a) of the Mississippi Code further sets out punitive damages caps for defendants based on each defendant’s net worth (e.g., up to $20 million for defendants worth $1 billion or more).

MISSOURI: If a party in Missouri requests punitive damages, the trial shall be held in bifurcated form, first to determine liability and the amount of compensatory damages, and second to determine the amount of punitive damages.60 To support an award of punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions are willful, wanton, malicious or so reckless as to be in disregard of the consequences.61 If punitive damages are awarded, the award is limited to $500,000 or five times the compensatory judgment, whichever is greater.62 Further, 50 percent of the punitive damages award will be deducted and dispersed to the state.63

MONTANA: Montana Code Section 27-1-220 allows for an award of punitive damages in tort actions other than those arising from contract. The damages may be awarded only when the defendant is found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice, and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.64 An award for punitive damages may not exceed $10 million or three percent of a defendant’s net worth, whichever is less, and the judge in a trial is required to review any jury award of punitive damages.65

NEBRASKA: Punitive damages are not available in Nebraska because the Nebraska Supreme Court has determined these awards violate the Nebraska Constitution.66

NEVADA: In Nevada, awards of punitive damages are generally available.67 In order to be awarded punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice (the malice may be express or implied).68 For most punitive damages awards, there is a cap of $300,000 if the compensatory damages awarded are less than $100,000, or three times the compensatory damages if the compensatory damages are $100,000 or more.69 This cap does not apply, however, when the award for punitive damages is brought against a manufacturer, distributer or seller of a defective product; an insurer who acts in bad faith; a person violating discriminatory housing prohibitions; a person causing damage due to hazardous waste; or a person causing damage due to defamation.70

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Punitive damages are not permitted in New Hampshire unless specifically authorized by statute in limited circumstances.71 When a defendant’s behavior is egregious and would typically amount to punitive damages elsewhere, however, New Hampshire’s liberal compensatory damage awards reflect these aggravating circumstances.72

NEW JERSEY: New Jersey typically allows punitive damages in tort actions other than for wrongful death.73 To receive a punitive award, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s behavior was motivated by actual malice or accompanied by wanton and willful disregard of others.74 Punitive damages awards are generally capped at five times the compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater.75 New Jersey has a safeguard for manufacturers of foods and drugs, providing that punitive damages shall not be awarded in cases in which the drug or device was approved by the FDA or is generally recognized as safe and effective pursuant to conditions established by the FDA.76

NEW MEXICO: Various New Mexico statutes authorize punitive damages, including actions alleging wrongful death.77 To be awarded punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (although the clear and convincing standard is used in punitive damages for defamation cases), that the defendant’s conduct was intentionally malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, or was committed with recklessness or wanton disregard.78 There appear to be no statutory caps on punitive damages.

NEW YORK: Various New York statutes, including the wrongful death statute, authorize punitive damages.79 To prove a claim for common-law punitive damages, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant consciously disregarded the rights of others or was so reckless that it would amount to a disregard of the rights of others.80 Generally, the standard used to analyze punitive damages in New York is the same standard as that required to establish the underlying claim.81

NORTH CAROLINA: North Carolina Statute Section 1D-1 allows punitive damages to be granted. Punitive damages may be awarded if the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is liable for compensatory damages and an aggravating factor of fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct is present.82 Punitive damages awards are generally capped at three times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.83

NORTH DAKOTA: In North Dakota, if a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or actual malice, punitive damages may be awarded, other than in a wrongful death action.84 If the plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages may not be awarded.85 Punitive damages awards are capped at twice the amount of compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.86 There is a safeguard in North Dakota for product manufacturers: if the product complied with federal statutes, administrative regulations and federal agency requirements, punitive damages generally may not be awarded against the manufacturer.87

OHIO: Punitive damages for tort actions are generally permitted in Ohio.88 Plaintiffs seeking a punitive award must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct demonstrated malice or aggravated or egregious fraud.89 Ohio places caps on the amount of punitive damages dependent on the defendant’s situation. Generally, an award of punitive damages should not be in excess of two times the amount of compensatory damages.90 But if the defendant is an individual or employer of a small business, punitive damages may not be in excess of twice the amount of compensatory damages or 10 percent of the individual or employer’s net worth, whichever is less.91 Although punitive damages are allowed in products liability actions, a drug manufacturer will not be liable for punitive damages if the drug complied with federal regulations.92

OKLAHOMA: Per Oklahoma statute, punitive damages awards are permitted when the jury finds clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard of the rights of others or has acted intentionally with malice toward others.93 The caps vary based on the jury’s reasoning in finding punitive damages. If the jury finds that the defendant acted with reckless disregard, the punitive damages award may not exceed the amount of compensatory damages or $100,000, whichever is greater.94 If the jury finds that the defendant acted intentionally with malice, the punitive damages award may not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, or the increased financial benefit of the defendant because of his conduct, or $500,000, whichever is greatest.95 If the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally with malice and engaged in life-threatening behavior, no cap on the punitive award is applicable.96

OREGON: Punitive damages are generally permitted in Oregon if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice or reckless and outrageous indifference to others.97 When an award of punitive damages is granted, 30 percent of the award is payable to the prevailing party, 60 percent is deposited into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Account, and 10 percent is deposited into the State Court Facilities and Security Account.98 In an action for wrongful death, punitive damages will be available if the decedent would have been entitled to punitive damages had he lived.99 Punitive damages may generally be awarded in products liability actions but not against drug manufacturers if the drug was manufactured and labeled in accordance with FDA regulations.100

PENNSYLVANIA: The standard of proof for punitive damages in Pennsylvania in product liability actions is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Sprague v. Walter, 441 Pa. Super. 1, 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). Pennsylvania law does not cap punitive damages. Other than the constitutional requirement that a punitive damages award comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the only limitation on punitive damages in Pennsylvania is that the “size of a punitive damages award must be reasonably related to the State’s interest in punishing and deterring the particular behavior of the defendant and not the product of arbitrariness or unfettered discretion. In accordance with this limitation, the standard under which punitive damages are measured in Pennsylvania requires analysis of the following factors: (1) the character of the act, (2) the nature and extent of the harm and (3) the wealth of the defendant.” Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exch., 842 A.2d 409, 419-420 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (citations omitted). “[W]here an amount of an award of punitive damages… shocks the Court’s sense of conscience, the award cannot stand.” Pestco, Inc. v. Associated Prods., 880 A.2d 700, 710 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (citations omitted).

RHODE ISLAND: Punitive damages are generally permitted in Rhode Island, while some statutes specifically address punitive awards. Punitive damages are only proper if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s actions were “so willful, reckless or wicked that they amount to criminality.”101 There are no statutory caps on punitive damages.

SOUTH CAROLINA: South Carolina allows awards of punitive damages when proven by clear and convincing evidence.102 Punitive damages may only be considered in the second stage of a bifurcated trial once compensatory damages have been awarded in the first stage.103 Plaintiff must prove that his injury was caused by defendant’s willful, wanton or reckless conduct.104 Generally, punitive damages are capped at three times the compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.105 The award amount will not be limited, however, if it is determined that the defendant intentionally caused harm, had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol when the harm occurred, or was committing a felony at the time the harm occurred.106 In certain circumstances, such as if the court determines that the defendant’s behavior was motivated by financial gain, the punitive damages award could be four times compensatory damages or $2 million, whichever is greater.107

SOUTH DAKOTA: In South Dakota, punitive damages must be expressly provided by statute.108 The statute governing tort actions expressly provides for punitive damages.109 Before punitive damages may even be claimed, however, the court must hold a hearing to determine if there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct involved oppression, fraud, malice (actual or implied), or was willful or wanton.110 There appear to be no statutory caps on punitive damages.

TENNESSEE: Punitive damages are generally recoverable under Tennessee law.111 The damages can only be awarded if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly.112 Tennessee imposes a cap on punitive damages of twice the amount of compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.113 If the defendant intended to cause harm, falsified records to avoid liability, or was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when the harm was caused, the limit on punitive damages will not apply.114 There is a safeguard in the Tennessee Code for product sellers and manufacturers. A product seller may not be liable for punitive damages unless the seller exercised substantial control over the product, altered the product or was aware of the defective condition of the product.115 Further, a drug manufacturer is not liable for punitive damages if the drug was in accordance with FDA regulations unless the manufacturer withheld or misrepresented information to the FDA.116 A defendant can also generally avoid punitive damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in substantial compliance with state and federal regulations.117

TEXAS: Texas allows the recovery of punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct involved fraud, malice or gross negligence.118 Texas is unique in that punitive damages will only be awarded if a unanimous jury agrees that it is appropriate.119 A punitive award will only be considered after compensatory damages are awarded.120 Texas law sets a cap on punitive damages: the amount of the punitive award may not exceed twice the amount of economic damages plus noneconomic damages (up to $750,000) or $200,000, whichever is greater.121

UTAH: Punitive damages may be recovered when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct was willful and malicious, intentionally fraudulent or manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward others.122 A punitive damages award of $50,000 will belong solely to the injured party, but any award over $50,000 will be split equally between the injured party and the state of Utah.123 Punitive damages shall not be awarded if the drug in question was in accordance with FDA regulations unless the manufacturer knowingly withheld or misrepresented information submitted to the FDA.124

VERMONT: Various Vermont statutes permit recovery of punitive damages. In order to support a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct manifested personal ill will or showed a reckless or wanton disregard for others.125

VIRGINIA: Virginia permits awards of punitive damages for various tort actions, including personal injury and wrongful death.126 Punitive damages may be available for willful or wanton conduct or reckless disregard for others.127 Case law has interpreted this to require, by clear and convincing evidence, proof of malice.128 Virginia has statutorily capped punitive damages awards at $350,000.129

WASHINGTON: The state of Washington does not generally allow punitive damages. In very limited situations, however, some punitive awards are available where explicitly granted by statute.

WEST VIRGINIA: In West Virginia, punitive damages are permissible after compensatory damages have been awarded. Punitive damages are available where the plaintiff can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s gross fraud, malice, oppression, or wanton, willful or reckless conduct caused the harm.130 West Virginia does not impose any statutory cap on punitive damages awards.

WISCONSIN: Punitive damages are generally recoverable in Wisconsin.131 In order to recover, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously or with intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.132 Punitive damages are available in most tort actions but not in wrongful death actions or in breach of contract actions. Wisconsin caps punitive damages to twice the compensatory damages or $200,000, whichever is greater.

WYOMING: Various Wyoming statutes allow for punitive damages. In order to obtain an award of punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, such as an intentional tort, a tort involving malice, or torts involving willful and wanton misconduct. 133


[1] In Re: Actos Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 6:11-md-2299 (W.D. La.).

[2] Code of Ala. § 6-11-20(a).

[3] Code of Ala. § 6-11-21(a). For more limitations and exceptions to punitive damages in Alabama, see generally Code of Ala. § 6-11-21.

[4] Lockhart v. Draper, 209 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Alaska 2009).

[5] Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(j).

[6] Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(g).

[7] Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 675, 681 (Ariz. 1986).

[8] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-689.

[9] Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 31 (“No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person . . . .”).

[10] Ark. Code §§ 16-55-206 & 16-55-207.

[11] Ark. Code § 16-55-208; Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 385 S.W. 3d 822, 831 (Ark. 2011).

[12] Cal. Civ. § 3294.

[13] See, e.g., In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia, 684 F.2d 1301, 1315 (9th Cir. 1980); Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 171 Cal. Rptr. 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1981).

[14] See Cal. Civ. §§ 52(a) & 54.3(a); see also Botosan v. Fitzhug, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1052-53 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 1998).

[15] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-127(2).

[16] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(3).

[17] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(2).

[18] Bodner v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 610 A.2d 1212, 1219 (Conn. 1992).

[19] See, e.g., Bridgeport Harbor Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 30 A.3d 703, 732 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (“Punitive damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”).

[20] Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 529 (Del. 1987); McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090, 1095 (Del. Super. Ct. 1977).

[21] Del. Code tit. 10, § 3724; see also Sterner v. Wesley College, 747 F. Supp. 263, 269 (D. Del. 1990).

[22] Fla. Stat. § 768.73(1).

[23] See, e.g., Myers v. Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc., 592 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying Florida law).

[24] Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1; see also Roseberry v. Brooks, 461 S.E.2d 262, 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (“Punitive damages are not available in a wrongful death action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

[25] Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1(e)-(f).

[26] Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1(g).

[27] See, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 368 and 269-71.

[28] Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 992 P.2d 93, 115 (Haw. 2000).

[29] Idaho Code § 6-1604(3).

[30] § 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-604.1.

[31] Lawlor v. N. Am. Corp. of Ill., 983 N.E.2d 414, 430 (Ill. 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

[32] Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 689 N.E. 2d 1057 (Ill. 1997); see also 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1115.05.

[33] Ind. Code § 34-51-3-2.

[34] Ind. Code § 34-51-3-4.

[35] Ind. Code § 34-51-3-6.

[36] State v. Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2013).

[37] Iowa Code § 668A.1(2)(a).

[38] Iowa Code § 668A.1(2)(b).

[39] Kan. Stat. § 60-3702(c).

[40] Kan. Stat. § 60-3702(e).

[41] See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.130.

[42] Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.184.

[43] La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4; La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1312.

[44] Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 18-A, § 2-804.

[45] Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1354 (Me. 1985) (“We hold that, in order to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted with malice.”).

[46] See, e.g., Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4131; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8105.

[47] Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-913.

[48] Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, 601 A.2d 633, 652, 657 (Md. 1992).

[49] Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904; see also Cohen v. Rubin, 460 A.2d 1046, 1056 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) (“punitive damages are not recoverable in cases arising under the wrongful death statute unless and until the legislature so provides”).

[50] Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc., 995 N.E.2d 740, 754 (Mass. 2013).

[51] Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 2.

[52] Aleo, 955 N.E.2d at 754 (“common law and constitutional principles mandate that courts review the amount of a punitive award to ensure that it is reasonable and not imply a criminal penalty. . . . where, as here, there is no cap on punitive damages, a judge or an appellate court must scrutinize the relationship between actual damages and the award of punitive damages (quotation marks and citations omitted)).

[53] Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 427 N.W. 2d 488, 498 (Mich. 1988).

[54] B&B Inv. Group v. Gitler, 581 N.W. 2d 17, 20 (Mich. 1998).

[55] Bailey v. Graves, 309 N.W. 2d 166, 169 (Mich. 1981).

[56] Minn. Stat. § 549.191.

[57] Minn. Stat. § 549.20.

[58] Miss. Code § 11-1-65.

[59] Id.

[60] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263.

[61] See, e.g., Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 630 (Mo. 2013).

[62] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265.

[63] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.675.

[64] Mont. Code § 27-1-221.

[65] Mont. Code §§ 27- 1-220 & 27-1-221.

[66] Distinctive Printing & Packaging Co. v. Cox, 443 N.W. 2d 566, 574 (Neb. 1989); see also Neb. Const. art. VII, § 5.

[67] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005.

[68] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1).

[69] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)(a)-(b).

[70] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(2).

[71] N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:16.

[72] See, e.g., Aubert v. Aubert, 529 A.2d 909, 914 (N.H. 1987).

[73] N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:15-5.10 & 2A:15-5.12; see also Smith v. Whitaker, 713 A.2d 20, 25 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998).

[74] N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.12.

[75] N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.14.

[76] N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-5.

[77] N.M. Stat. § 41-2-3.

[78] United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 709 P.2d 649, 654 (N.M. 1985). For claims of defamation, however, an award of punitive damages requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 773 P.2d 1231, 1237 (N.M. 1989).

[79] N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 5-4.3.

[80] Welch v. Mr. Christmas, Inc., 440 N.E. 2d 1317, 1321 (N.Y. 1982).

[81] See Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., N.Y.S.2d 784, 801-02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005).

[82] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15.

[83] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-25.

[84] N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11.

[85] N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11(4).

[86] Id.

[87] N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11(6)-(7).

[88] Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21.

[89] Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(C)-(D).

[90] Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(D)(2)(a).

[91] Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(D)(2)(b).

[92] Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.80.

[93] Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1.

[94] Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B).

[95] Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C).

[96] Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(D).

[97] Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.730.

[98] Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.735.

[99] Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.020.

[100] Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.927.

[101] Greater Providence Deposit Corp. v. Jenison, 485 A.2d 1242, 1244 (R.I. 1984).

[102] S.C. Code § 15-33-135.

[103] S.C. Code § 15-32-520.

[104] See Fairchild v. S.C. DOT, 727 S.E.2d 407, 411 (S.C. 2012) (“Punitive damages are recoverable where there is evidence the defendant’s conduct was reckless, willful, or wanton.”).

[105] S.C. Code § 15-32-530.

[106] S.C. Code § 15-32-530(C).

[107] S.C. Code § 15-32-530(B).

[108] S.D. Codified Laws § 21-1-4.

[109] S.D. Codified Laws § 21-3-2.

[110] S.D. Codified Laws §§ 21-1-4.1 & 21-3-2.

[111] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104.

[112] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a).

[113] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a)(5).

[114] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a)(7).

[115] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(c).

[116] Tenn. Code 29-39-104(d).

[117] Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(e).

[118] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003.

[119] Id.

[120] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.004.

[121] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008.

[122] Utah Code § 78B-8-201.

[123] Utah Code § 78B-8-201(3)(a).

[124] Utah Code § 78B-8-203.

[125] Furno v. Pignona, 522 A.2d 746, 750 (Vt. 1986).

[126] See, e.g., Va. Code §§ 8.01-42.1 & 8.01-52.

[127] Va. Code § 8.01-52.

[128] Flippo v. Csc Assocs. III, L.L.C., 547 S.E. 2d 216, 223 (Va. 2001).

[129] Va. Code § 8.01-38.1.

[130] See Perrine v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 694 S.E.2d 815, 883 (W. Va. 2010) (citation omitted).

[131] Wis. Stat. § 895.043.

[132] Id.; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 294 N.W. 2d 437, 458 n.23 (Wis. 1980).

[133] Campen v. Stone, 635 P.2d 1121, 1134 (Wyo. 1981).

Finis

Citations

  1. In Re: Actos Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 6:11-md-2299 (W.D. La.). Jump back to footnote 1 in the text
  2. Code of Ala. § 6-11-20(a). Jump back to footnote 2 in the text
  3. Code of Ala. § 6-11-21(a). For more limitations and exceptions to punitive damages in Alabama, see generally Code of Ala. § 6-11-21. Jump back to footnote 3 in the text
  4. Lockhart v. Draper, 209 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Alaska 2009). Jump back to footnote 4 in the text
  5. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(j). Jump back to footnote 5 in the text
  6. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(g). Jump back to footnote 6 in the text
  7. Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 675, 681 (Ariz. 1986). Jump back to footnote 7 in the text
  8. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-689. Jump back to footnote 8 in the text
  9. Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 31 (“No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person . . . .”). Jump back to footnote 9 in the text
  10. Ark. Code §§ 16-55-206 & 16-55-207. Jump back to footnote 10 in the text
  11. Ark. Code § 16-55-208; Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 385 S.W. 3d 822, 831 (Ark. 2011). Jump back to footnote 11 in the text
  12. Cal. Civ. § 3294. Jump back to footnote 12 in the text
  13. See, e.g., In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia, 684 F.2d 1301, 1315 (9th Cir. 1980); Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 171 Cal. Rptr. 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1981). Jump back to footnote 13 in the text
  14. See Cal. Civ. §§ 52(a) & 54.3(a); see also Botosan v. Fitzhug, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1052-53 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 1998). Jump back to footnote 14 in the text
  15. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-127(2). Jump back to footnote 15 in the text
  16. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(3). Jump back to footnote 16 in the text
  17. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(2). Jump back to footnote 17 in the text
  18. Bodner v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 610 A.2d 1212, 1219 (Conn. 1992). Jump back to footnote 18 in the text
  19. See, e.g., Bridgeport Harbor Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 30 A.3d 703, 732 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (“Punitive damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”). Jump back to footnote 19 in the text
  20. Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 529 (Del. 1987); McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090, 1095 (Del. Super. Ct. 1977). Jump back to footnote 20 in the text
  21. Del. Code tit. 10, § 3724; see also Sterner v. Wesley College, 747 F. Supp. 263, 269 (D. Del. 1990). Jump back to footnote 21 in the text
  22. Fla. Stat. § 768.73(1). Jump back to footnote 22 in the text
  23. See, e.g., Myers v. Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc., 592 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying Florida law). Jump back to footnote 23 in the text
  24. Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1; see also Roseberry v. Brooks, 461 S.E.2d 262, 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (“Punitive damages are not available in a wrongful death action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Jump back to footnote 24 in the text
  25. Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1(e)-(f). Jump back to footnote 25 in the text
  26. Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1(g). Jump back to footnote 26 in the text
  27. See, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 368 and 269-71. Jump back to footnote 27 in the text
  28. Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 992 P.2d 93, 115 (Haw. 2000). Jump back to footnote 28 in the text
  29. Idaho Code § 6-1604(3). Jump back to footnote 29 in the text
  30. § 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-604.1. Jump back to footnote 30 in the text
  31. Lawlor v. N. Am. Corp. of Ill., 983 N.E.2d 414, 430 (Ill. 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Jump back to footnote 31 in the text
  32. Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 689 N.E. 2d 1057 (Ill. 1997); see also 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1115.05. Jump back to footnote 32 in the text
  33. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-2. Jump back to footnote 33 in the text
  34. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-4. Jump back to footnote 34 in the text
  35. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-6. Jump back to footnote 35 in the text
  36. State v. Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2013). Jump back to footnote 36 in the text
  37. Iowa Code § 668A.1(2)(a). Jump back to footnote 37 in the text
  38. Iowa Code § 668A.1(2)(b). Jump back to footnote 38 in the text
  39. Kan. Stat. § 60-3702(c). Jump back to footnote 39 in the text
  40. Kan. Stat. § 60-3702(e). Jump back to footnote 40 in the text
  41. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.130. Jump back to footnote 41 in the text
  42. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.184. Jump back to footnote 42 in the text
  43. La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4; La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1312. Jump back to footnote 43 in the text
  44. Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 18-A, § 2-804. Jump back to footnote 44 in the text
  45. Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1354 (Me. 1985) (“We hold that, in order to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted with malice.”). Jump back to footnote 45 in the text
  46. See, e.g., Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4131; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8105. Jump back to footnote 46 in the text
  47. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-913. Jump back to footnote 47 in the text
  48. Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, 601 A.2d 633, 652, 657 (Md. 1992). Jump back to footnote 48 in the text
  49. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904; see also Cohen v. Rubin, 460 A.2d 1046, 1056 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) (“punitive damages are not recoverable in cases arising under the wrongful death statute unless and until the legislature so provides”). Jump back to footnote 49 in the text
  50. Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc., 995 N.E.2d 740, 754 (Mass. 2013). Jump back to footnote 50 in the text
  51. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 2. Jump back to footnote 51 in the text
  52. Aleo, 955 N.E.2d at 754 (“common law and constitutional principles mandate that courts review the amount of a punitive award to ensure that it is reasonable and not imply a criminal penalty. . . . where, as here, there is no cap on punitive damages, a judge or an appellate court must scrutinize the relationship between actual damages and the award of punitive damages (quotation marks and citations omitted)). Jump back to footnote 52 in the text
  53. Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 427 N.W. 2d 488, 498 (Mich. 1988). Jump back to footnote 53 in the text
  54. B&B Inv. Group v. Gitler, 581 N.W. 2d 17, 20 (Mich. 1998). Jump back to footnote 54 in the text
  55. Bailey v. Graves, 309 N.W. 2d 166, 169 (Mich. 1981). Jump back to footnote 55 in the text
  56. Minn. Stat. § 549.191. Jump back to footnote 56 in the text
  57. Minn. Stat. § 549.20. Jump back to footnote 57 in the text
  58. Miss. Code § 11-1-65. Jump back to footnote 58 in the text
  59. Id. Jump back to footnote 59 in the text
  60. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263. Jump back to footnote 60 in the text
  61. See, e.g., Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 630 (Mo. 2013). Jump back to footnote 61 in the text
  62. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265. Jump back to footnote 62 in the text
  63. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.675. Jump back to footnote 63 in the text
  64. Mont. Code § 27-1-221. Jump back to footnote 64 in the text
  65. Mont. Code §§ 27- 1-220 & 27-1-221. Jump back to footnote 65 in the text
  66. Distinctive Printing & Packaging Co. v. Cox, 443 N.W. 2d 566, 574 (Neb. 1989); see also Neb. Const. art. VII, § 5. Jump back to footnote 66 in the text
  67. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005. Jump back to footnote 67 in the text
  68. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1). Jump back to footnote 68 in the text
  69. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)(a)-(b). Jump back to footnote 69 in the text
  70. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(2). Jump back to footnote 70 in the text
  71. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:16. Jump back to footnote 71 in the text
  72. See, e.g., Aubert v. Aubert, 529 A.2d 909, 914 (N.H. 1987). Jump back to footnote 72 in the text
  73. N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:15-5.10 & 2A:15-5.12; see also Smith v. Whitaker, 713 A.2d 20, 25 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998). Jump back to footnote 73 in the text
  74. N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.12. Jump back to footnote 74 in the text
  75. N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.14. Jump back to footnote 75 in the text
  76. N.J. Stat. § 2A:58C-5. Jump back to footnote 76 in the text
  77. N.M. Stat. § 41-2-3. Jump back to footnote 77 in the text
  78. United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 709 P.2d 649, 654 (N.M. 1985). For claims of defamation, however, an award of punitive damages requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 773 P.2d 1231, 1237 (N.M. 1989). Jump back to footnote 78 in the text
  79. N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 5-4.3. Jump back to footnote 79 in the text
  80. Welch v. Mr. Christmas, Inc., 440 N.E. 2d 1317, 1321 (N.Y. 1982). Jump back to footnote 80 in the text
  81. See Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., N.Y.S.2d 784, 801-02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). Jump back to footnote 81 in the text
  82. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15. Jump back to footnote 82 in the text
  83. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-25. Jump back to footnote 83 in the text
  84. N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11. Jump back to footnote 84 in the text
  85. N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11(4). Jump back to footnote 85 in the text
  86. Id. Jump back to footnote 86 in the text
  87. N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-11(6)-(7). Jump back to footnote 87 in the text
  88. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21. Jump back to footnote 88 in the text
  89. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(C)-(D). Jump back to footnote 89 in the text
  90. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(D)(2)(a). Jump back to footnote 90 in the text
  91. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21(D)(2)(b). Jump back to footnote 91 in the text
  92. Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.80. Jump back to footnote 92 in the text
  93. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. Jump back to footnote 93 in the text
  94. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B). Jump back to footnote 94 in the text
  95. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C). Jump back to footnote 95 in the text
  96. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(D). Jump back to footnote 96 in the text
  97. Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.730. Jump back to footnote 97 in the text
  98. Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.735. Jump back to footnote 98 in the text
  99. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.020. Jump back to footnote 99 in the text
  100. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.927. Jump back to footnote 100 in the text
  101. Greater Providence Deposit Corp. v. Jenison, 485 A.2d 1242, 1244 (R.I. 1984). Jump back to footnote 101 in the text
  102. S.C. Code § 15-33-135. Jump back to footnote 102 in the text
  103. S.C. Code § 15-32-520. Jump back to footnote 103 in the text
  104. See Fairchild v. S.C. DOT, 727 S.E.2d 407, 411 (S.C. 2012) (“Punitive damages are recoverable where there is evidence the defendant’s conduct was reckless, willful, or wanton.”). Jump back to footnote 104 in the text
  105. S.C. Code § 15-32-530. Jump back to footnote 105 in the text
  106. S.C. Code § 15-32-530(C). Jump back to footnote 106 in the text
  107. S.C. Code § 15-32-530(B). Jump back to footnote 107 in the text
  108. S.D. Codified Laws § 21-1-4. Jump back to footnote 108 in the text
  109. S.D. Codified Laws § 21-3-2. Jump back to footnote 109 in the text
  110. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 21-1-4.1 & 21-3-2. Jump back to footnote 110 in the text
  111. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104. Jump back to footnote 111 in the text
  112. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a). Jump back to footnote 112 in the text
  113. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a)(5). Jump back to footnote 113 in the text
  114. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(a)(7). Jump back to footnote 114 in the text
  115. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(c). Jump back to footnote 115 in the text
  116. Tenn. Code 29-39-104(d). Jump back to footnote 116 in the text
  117. Tenn. Code § 29-39-104(e). Jump back to footnote 117 in the text
  118. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003. Jump back to footnote 118 in the text
  119. Id. Jump back to footnote 119 in the text
  120. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.004. Jump back to footnote 120 in the text
  121. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008. Jump back to footnote 121 in the text
  122. Utah Code § 78B-8-201. Jump back to footnote 122 in the text
  123. Utah Code § 78B-8-201(3)(a). Jump back to footnote 123 in the text
  124. Utah Code § 78B-8-203. Jump back to footnote 124 in the text
  125. Furno v. Pignona, 522 A.2d 746, 750 (Vt. 1986). Jump back to footnote 125 in the text
  126. See, e.g., Va. Code §§ 8.01-42.1 & 8.01-52. Jump back to footnote 126 in the text
  127. Va. Code § 8.01-52. Jump back to footnote 127 in the text
  128. Flippo v. Csc Assocs. III, L.L.C., 547 S.E. 2d 216, 223 (Va. 2001). Jump back to footnote 128 in the text
  129. Va. Code § 8.01-38.1. Jump back to footnote 129 in the text
  130. See Perrine v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 694 S.E.2d 815, 883 (W. Va. 2010) (citation omitted). Jump back to footnote 130 in the text
  131. Wis. Stat. § 895.043. Jump back to footnote 131 in the text
  132. Id.; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 294 N.W. 2d 437, 458 n.23 (Wis. 1980). Jump back to footnote 132 in the text
  133. Campen v. Stone, 635 P.2d 1121, 1134 (Wyo. 1981). Jump back to footnote 133 in the text