BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2740
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2740 (Niello) - As Amended: March 25, 2010
SUBJECT : CIVIL ACTIONS: LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES
KEY ISSUES :
1)Should the legislature RESTRICT the CURRENT authority of A
judge or jury to determine the APPROPRIATE amount of punitive
damages neEDED to deter future misconduct AND TO punish
defendants for fraud, malice, or oppression, BY ARBITRARILY
capPING punitive damages at three times the amount of
compensatory damages?
2)Should the legislature create a NEW ABSOLUTE defense for
manufacturers, distributOrs and sellers IN ORDER to exempt
them from punitive damages liability, with A narrow exception,
SO LONG AS they COMPLY with federal or state agency
regulations?
3)Should the legislature place AN ARBITRARY STATUTORY CAP OF two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) ON THE non-economic
losses that aNY plaintiff may recover DUE TO NEGLIGENCE,
REGARDLESS OF THE SCOPE AND SEVERITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
physical impairment, disfigurement, AND pain SUFFERED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This far reaching remedies restriction proposal seeks to
constrain the current ability of the judiciary to determine
compensatory and punitive damages, and to create a new
"government standards defense" for manufacturers, distributors
and sellers. In support of the measure, the author explains
that the bill is part of the Governor's package of tort reform
bills designed to help improve California's economy by limiting
the exposure businesses face for alleged acts of fraud, malice
or oppression and for so-called non-economic damages due to
alleged negligence.
AB 2740
Page 2
First, the bill arbitrarily caps punitive damages in tort cases
at no more than three times the award of compensatory damages.
Under current law, punitive damages may be awarded for the
purposes of deterring future misconduct and punishing especially
despicable acts. In this regard, the analysis notes that the
Legislature already constrained the potential award of punitive
damages in 1987 to only those circumstances where a plaintiff
can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malicious conduct. In addition,
the U.S. Supreme Court has already established a presumptive cap
on punitive damages at fully three times the cap amount
contained in this measure (at what is in essence nine times the
award of compensatory damages under the 2003 case of State Farm
Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell , 538 U.S. 408, 424-25 (2003)).
Second, the bill seeks to establish the so-called "government
standards defense" in California product liability cases,
providing that the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a
product shall be shielded from potential punitive damages
liability so long as its product was in compliance with the
regulations set forth by a state or federal agency, unless the
defendant intentionally withheld or misrepresented material
information to that agency. Under California case law, courts
traditionally recognize regulatory compliance as a means of
comporting to a minimum standard of care, but regulatory
compliance does not in any way fulfill a maximum standard of
care.
Finally, the bill endeavors to impose an arbitrary cap of two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) on the non-economic
losses that any plaintiff may recover due to negligence,
regardless of the scope and severity of the physical impairment,
disfigurement, and pain suffered by the plaintiff. Analysis
notes that several states have passed legislation establishing
such a cap on a plaintiff's recovery for noneconomic losses,
only to have the laws struck down as unconstitutional for
violating the fundamental right to a trial by jury, violating
the separation of powers doctrine, or for violating substantive
due process. It is not clear whether such a statutory cap would
face a similar fate in California's courts.
It is important to note that various versions of the proposals
in this measure have been proposed many times before in the
Legislature -- though none in recent memory has stitched
AB 2740
Page 3
together such substantial proposals into a single piece of
legislation. For example, SB 423 (Harman) in 2008 similarly
sought to limit punitive damages in tort cases to three times
actual damages. It was defeated in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. SB 1429 (Morrow) in 2006 sought to enact a similar
"government standards defense," but the author chose not to
present it in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And AB 1934
(Honda) sought to limit non-economic damages to $250,000 in all
actions for damages resulting from a computer date failure in
the year 2000. It similarly failed in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
The bill is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and
a broad coalition of other state business entities as a
pro-business, pro-jobs measure. It is opposed by the Consumer
Attorneys of California, the Congress of California Seniors, and
Consumer Watchdog because they assert the proposal will "both
limit the rights of injured Californians and reduce
accountability for negligent companies."
SUMMARY : Seeks to constrain the current ability of the
judiciary to determine compensatory and punitive damages, and to
create a new "government standards defense" in tort actions for
manufacturers, distributors and sellers. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Limits punitive damages to three times the amount of
compensatory damages in tort actions, where it is proven by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.
2)Provides for the so-called "government standards defense,"
meaning that in a case involving injury or harm allegedly
caused by a product, the manufacturer, distributor, or seller
of the product shall be shielded from potential punitive
damages if, at the time of manufacture, distribution, or sale,
the cause of the alleged harm was either approved by, or in
material compliance with, a statute or the standards, rules,
regulations, requirements, or specifications of, a federal or
state agency responsible for regulating, evaluating, or
approving the product, except as specified.
3)Provides that this "government standards defense" shall not
apply if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that
the defendant intentionally withheld or intentionally
AB 2740
Page 4
misrepresented information that the defendant was required to
submit to the agency at any time and the withholding or
misrepresentation of that information was causally related to
the injury or harm alleged.
4)Provides that the government standards defense shall apply to
every case pending on or after the date of enactment
regardless of when the case was filed.
5)Provides that in any action for injury based on negligence,
the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover noneconomic losses
in the amount that will compensate for all the detriment
proximately caused, not to exceed $250,000.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the award of punitive damages in addition to
actual damages in cases not arising in contract (i.e., tort
cases) for the sake of example and by way of punishing the
defendant: (a) when it is proven by clear and convincing
evidence; and (b) where the defendant is guilty of oppression,
fraud, or malice. (Civil Code Section 3294(a). All further
statutory references are to this code unless otherwise
stated.)
2)Provides, in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in State Farm
Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell , that there are no "concrete
constitutional limits on the ratio between harm, or potential
harm, to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award? We have
consistently rejected the notion that the constitutional line
is marked by a simple mathematical formula, even one that
compares actual and potential damages to the punitive award?
We decline ? to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive
damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the
principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that,
in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio?
between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant
degree, will satisfy due process." (538 U.S. 408, 424-25
(2003).)
3)Provides for the bifurcation of a civil action in which
punitive damages are claimed. On application of any
defendant, the court shall preclude the admission of evidence
of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after
the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding
AB 2740
Page 5
actual damages and finds that defendant guilty of malice,
oppression, or fraud for purposes of punitive damages.
(Section 3295, as amended by SB 241 (Lockyer) Ch. 1498 of
1987, otherwise known as the Willie L. Brown Jr.-Bill Lockyer
Civil Liability Reform Act of 1987.)
4)Provides that an employer shall not be liable for damages for
the acts of an employee unless the employer had advance
knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or
her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of
others, or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for
which the damages are awarded, or was personally guilty of
oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate
employer, advance knowledge and conscious disregard,
authorization, or ratification must be on the part of an
officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
(Section 3294(b).)
5)Defines, for the purpose of determining punitive damages, the
following key terms:
a) "Malice" means conduct which is intended to cause injury
or despicable conduct with a willful and conscious
disregard of the rights or safety of others.
b) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a
person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard
of that person's rights.
c) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit,
or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant
with the intention of depriving a person of property or
legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Section
3294(c).)
COMMENTS : This far reaching remedies restriction measure seeks
to constrain the current ability of the judiciary to determine
compensatory and punitive damages, and to create a new
"government standards defense" for manufacturers, distributors
and sellers. In support of the measure, the author explains
that the bill is part of the Governor's package of tort reform
bills designed to help improve California's economy by limiting
the exposure businesses face for alleged acts of fraud, malice
or oppression and for so-called non-economic damages due to
alleged negligence.
AB 2740
Page 6
First, the bill arbitrarily caps punitive damages in tort cases
at no more than three times the award of compensatory damages.
Under current law, punitive damages may be awarded for the
purposes of deterring future misconduct and punishing especially
despicable acts. In this regard, it is important to note that
the Legislature already constrained the potential award of
punitive damages in 1987 to only those circumstances where a
plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malicious conduct.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has already established a
presumptive cap on punitive damages at fully three times the cap
amount contained in this measure (at nine (9) times the award of
compensatory damages).
Second, the bill seeks to establish the so-called "government
standards defense" in California product liability cases,
providing that the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a
product shall be shielded from potential punitive damages
liability so long as its product was in compliance with the
regulations set forth by a state or federal agency, unless the
defendant intentionally withheld or misrepresented material
information to that agency. Under California case law, courts
traditionally recognize regulatory compliance as a means of
comporting to a minimum standard of care, but regulatory
compliance does not in any way fulfill a maximum standard of
care.
Finally, the bill endeavors to impose an arbitrary cap of two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) on the non-economic
losses that any plaintiff may recover due to negligence,
regardless of the scope and severity of the physical impairment,
disfigurement, and pain suffered by the plaintiff. Analysis
notes that several states have passed legislation establishing
such a cap on a plaintiff's recovery for non-economic losses,
only to have the laws struck down as unconstitutional for
violating the fundamental right to a trial by jury, violating
the separation of powers doctrine, or for violating substantive
due process. It is not clear whether such a statutory cap would
face a similar fate in California's courts.
It is important to note that various versions of the proposals
in this measure have been proposed many times before in the
Legislature, and all have failed passage -- though none in
recent memory has stitched together such substantial proposals
AB 2740
Page 7
into a single piece of legislation.
Author's Statement in Support : In support of this measure, the
author states:
The bill is part of the Governor's package of tort
reform bills, designed to help improve California's
economy. Right now, California needs more jobs, not
more lawsuits? The bill places limits on certain kinds
of damages in civil lawsuits.
The author further states that the government standards defense
to punitive damages will appropriately protect businesses by
eliminating the risk of punitive damages if the business has
acted in compliance with relevant regulations for the product.
The author believes that if the pertinent governmental
regulatory agency approved a product, the punishment rationale
behind punitive damages is inherently inappropriate. The author
believes the bill's exception to the government standards
defense for companies who lie or misrepresent information to the
regulatory body is sufficient to ensure that conduct warranting
punishment in excess of actual damages will still be subject to
punitive damages.
The author contends that the third aim of this bill, the
creation of a limit on non-economic damages in negligence
actions, will eliminate unreasonable and unpredictable awards,
substantially improving California's business climate. Such
so-called "non-economic" damages are the type of damages that
compensate victims of negligence for pain, suffering, physical
impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium or companionship,
and other less tangible injuries. In the author's view, because
these damages involve no direct economic loss to plaintiffs and
have no precise value, awards for non-economic damages too often
tend to be erratic and excessive, and they should face some
reasonable, even if arbitrary, limit,
regardless of their scope or severity.
In further support of this legislation, the author highlights
California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975
(MICRA), which, he notes, limits compensation for an injured
victim's non-economic losses in medical malpractice cases to the
arbitrary limit of $250,000.
The World's Shortest Damages Primer: In civil law, the term
AB 2740
Page 8
"damages" refers to the monetary sum assessed by a court against
a wrongdoer. The primary objective of an award of damages in a
civil action is just compensation for the actual loss or injury
sustained by the plaintiff. These are called "actual damages,"
or "compensatory damages." "Punitive damages," also referred to
as "exemplary damages," may be awarded in addition to
compensatory damages for the sake of example and to punish a
defendant who has been guilty of outrageous conduct.
Traditionally, punitive damages are required to bear a
reasonable relationship to the damage actually sustained by the
plaintiff. There currently is no statutory ratio in California
limiting a jury's right to decide the proper proportion between
compensatory and exemplary damages.
Overview of California and Federal Case Law Regarding Punitive
Damages: The purpose of punitive damages is to punish
wrongdoers and thereby deter the commission of similar wrongful
acts. However, there is no right to punitive damages. ( Hannon
Engineering v. Reim , (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 415.) Punitive
damages are merely incident to the underlying cause of action.
( James v. Public Finance , (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 995.) Punitive
damages may not be awarded unless actual damages are suffered.
( A. Esparza v. Specht , (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 1.)
Historically, the propriety and amount of punitive damages is
within the discretion and province of the jury. ( Fenlon v.
Brock, (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1174.) However, when an award of
punitive damages is excessive or is so grossly disproportionate
as to raise a presumption that it is the result of passion or
prejudice, an appellate court retains the authority to reverse
the award. ( Godfrey v. Steinpress , (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154.)
In determining the amount of a punitive damages award, guidance
is provided by the amount of compensatory damages, the wealth of
the particular defendant and the particular nature of the
defendant's acts in light of the whole record. ( Neal v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange , (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910.)
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the still controlling
case of State Farm Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell that the Due
Process clause does not countenance any arbitrary strict limits
on punitive damage awards. As noted above, the Court stated in
that case that there are no "concrete constitutional limits on
the ratio between harm, or potential harm, to the plaintiff and
the punitive damages award? We have consistently rejected the
notion that the constitutional line is marked by a simple
AB 2740
Page 9
mathematical formula, even one that compares actual and
potential damages to the punitive award? We decline ? to impose
a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot
exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now
established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards
exceeding a single-digit ratio? between punitive and
compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due
process." (538 U.S. 408, 424-25 (2003).)
Recently, the California Supreme Court issued two important
rulings discussing the constitutionality of punitive damages
awards in light of the guidelines established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., noted above.
In Johnson v. Ford Motor Company , (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, the
California Supreme Court ruled that disgorgement of aggregate
profits from similar misconduct is improper as a per se means of
determining punitive damages. However, the frequency and
profitability of misconduct may serve as a gauge for measuring
reprehensibility, a key factor in assessing punitive damages
under Campbell . In Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co. , (2005)
35 Cal.4th 1159 , the Court held that in calculating the proper
ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, courts could
consider "uncompensated" or "potential" harm to the plaintiff
(in addition to compensated harm), but only if the uncompensated
harm was caused by the defendant's actionable conduct.
Importantly for this legislation, the California Supreme Court
did not, however, create any bright line of what constitutes
appropriate levels of punitive damages in individual cases.
The Proposed Creation of a "Government Standards Defense :" As
noted above, this measure also proposes to create a new
so-called "government standards defense" in California product
liability cases, providing that the manufacturer, distributor,
or seller of a product shall be shielded from potential punitive
damages liability so long as its product was in compliance with
the regulations set forth by a state or federal agency, unless
the defendant intentionally withheld or misrepresented material
information to that agency. This provision is similar to SB
1429 (Morrow), that was introduced in 2006 but the author chose
not to present that measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As noted by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) in their
letter of opposition, California courts have consistently
refused to recognize a regulatory compliance defense. For
example, in Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. , (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539,
AB 2740
Page 10
547-547, our Supreme Court explained:
Courts have generally not looked with favor upon the
use of statutory compliance as a defense to tort
liability. The Restatement Second of Torts summarizes
the prevailing view in these terms: 'Where a statute,
ordinance or regulation is found to define a standard
of conduct for the purposes of negligence actions, the
standard defined is normally a minimum standard,
applicable to the ordinary situations contemplated by
the legislation. This legislative or administrative
minimum does not prevent a finding that a reasonable
[person] would have taken additional precautions where
the situation is such as to call for them.' (emphasis
added.)
CAOC contends that this reasoning should apply with even greater
force to punitive damages, which are only available where the
defendant is guilty of acting with conscious disregard. If a
defendant who complies with a safety standard, but who has
simply acted unreasonably, can be liable for negligence, then,
CAOC contends, "it certainly follows that a defendant who acts
with "willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of
others" should not be able to use the government standards
defense to provide themselves with absolute immunity from
punitive damages."
The author responds to these points by suggesting that it is
only fair to protect companies in California who are playing by
the rules. He states that the idea is that "if the appropriate
governmental regulatory agency told you your product was okay,
then you don't deserve to be punished with punitive damages.
The bill does however provide an exception for companies who lie
or misrepresent information to the regulatory body - in that
case, the company would not be able to use the defense and could
still be liable for punitive damages."
The Proposed $250,000 Cap On the Non-Economic Losses Any
Plaintiff May Recover Due To Negligence :" As noted above, this
measure also proposes to impose an arbitrary cap of $250,000 on
the non-economic losses that any plaintiff may recover due to
negligence, regardless of the scope and severity of the physical
impairment, disfigurement, and pain suffered by the plaintiff.
In support of such an arbitrary cap, the author states:
AB 2740
Page 11
According to the American Tort Reform Association,
lack of guidance and restraint for noneconomic losses
represents the single greatest contributor to the
inequities and inefficiencies of the tort liability
system ? A number of states are already leading the
way in this area of legal reform, with seventeen
having passed a law limiting noneconomic losses in
civil cases, not including limits involving medical
malpractice. The California legislature, itself,
recognized the need for this type of reform when it
enacted MICRA in 1975, limiting award for noneconomic
losses in medical malpractice cases to $250,000.
[This bill] would simply extend this reasonable limit
to all civil cases involving negligence.
Opponents take great exception to the reasonableness of such an
approach however. For example, CAOC writes in opposition to
this provision that:
[T]he $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages would not
only unfairly burden injured parties, but it may also
be unconstitutional. For example? both the Illinois
and the Georgia State Supreme Courts have struck down
noneconomic damage caps. The Georgia Court found
that the caps violated the victim's constitutional
right to a jury trial. The Illinois Court held that
legislation enacting caps on noneconomic damages
violated the state's separation of powers doctrine
because the right to reduce a verdict should be
reserved for the judiciary and was not a function of
the legislature? [Such a cap] is also a likely
violation of substantive due process?
CAOC also points to the case Smith v. Dpt. of Insurance (507
So.2d 1080 (1987)), a case where the Florida State Supreme Court
struck down a noneconomic damage cap set at $450,000, which CAOC
notes was nearly twice the level that this measure proposes. In
doing so, CAOC points to the Florida Supreme Court's reasoning
that:
Access to courts is granted for the purpose of
redressing injuries. A plaintiff who receives a jury
verdict for, e.g., $1,000,000, has not received a
constitutional redress of injuries if the legislature
AB 2740
Page 12
statutorily, and arbitrarily, caps the recovery at
$450,000. Nor, we add, because the jury verdict is
being arbitrarily capped, is the plaintiff receiving
the constitutional benefit of a jury trial as we have
heretofore understood that right. (Smith v. Dpt. of
Insurance, 507 So.2d at 1088-1089) (emphasis added.))
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Chamber of Commerce wrote
the Committee on behalf of a broad coalition of California
businesses and trade associations in strong support of this
measure, which the organization stated would "make a number of
changes to bring clarity and objectivity to California's civil
damages system, safeguarding against excessive, runaway damage
awards that unnecessarily harm California employers, drive up
the costs of goods and services, while doing little to further
individual protections."
Regarding the bills proposed cap on punitive damage awards, the
Chamber writes:
For the last several years, punitive damages reform
has been a top-requested state-level policy reform in
the annual U.S. Chamber/Harris 50-States Legal Climate
survey of in-house counsel and senior attorneys
representing businesses. In the same survey,
California's punitive damages system consistently
ranks in the bottom 10? Many state legislatures have
already addressed this issue and adopted limits to
prevent excessive punitive damages amounts. Five
states prohibit punitive damages altogether in civil
actions. Twenty-two states impose some form of cap or
formula, thirteen of which have a cap of a 3-to-1 or
smaller ratio to compensatory damages that applies to
some or all cases. The absence of any limits on
punitive damages in California, combined with its
growing reputation as a high-risk legal forum
negatively distinguishes California as one of the
highest risk states for runaway punitive damages
awards.
The Chamber of Commerce concludes by noting that "We believe the
legislature should take proactive steps to improve California's
legal climate by adopting the common sense civil damages reforms
contained in [this measure.] The current system is consistently
found to be unfair in national comparisons. Erratic and
AB 2740
Page 13
unpredictable damage awards in civil actions encourage frivolous
lawsuits, drive up the cost of doing business in the state, and
encourage employers from expanding in California, all without
adding any meaningful protection for individuals."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: As noted above, the Consumer Attorneys
of California (CAOC) wrote, the Committee in strong opposition
to this measure. Amongst others things, CAOC states that
California should retain its current tort system to protect all
Californians. It writes in part that:
[N]ot only do injured parties have a constitutional
right to be fully compensated by those who have
wronged them, but our tort system benefits society
significantly by preventing the expenses incurred by
injured consumers from being borne by society as a
whole. As an example, defective consumer products
impose significant costs on both the consumers who are
injured and third parties. If the manufacturers and
corporations at fault for these injuries do not fully
compensate victims, the costs that consumers are
unable to bear will be shifted to the taxpayer via the
safety net of public services. From a policy
standpoint, CAOC argues that shifting the burden of
compensation from an unlawful corporation to the
taxpayers is inequitable and unsustainable.
The California Employment Lawyers Association ("CELA") also
opposes the bill, writing in part that:
Numerous violations of the California Labor Code are
misdemeanors. With prosecutorial budgets stretched
thin, those crimes are prosecuted rarely or never.
This leaves civil actions as the lone enforcement
mechanism. The caps in AB 2740 are soft-on-crime
measures that will weaken that enforcement and weaken
the disincentive to engage in despicable and criminal
acts. There is no reason why we as a society should
be protecting and subsidizing wrongdoers. It is
unfair to their victims, unfair to their law-abiding
competitors, and unfair to the taxpayers?
Consumer Watchdog, a consumer rights organization, opposes the
bill because they contend it "both limits the rights of injured
Californians and reduces accountability for negligent
AB 2740
Page 14
companies." The Congress of California Seniors opposes the
measure on similar grounds.
Prior Related Legislation : SB 423 (Harman) in 2007-8 would have
similarly limited punitive damages to three times actual
damages. The bill failed passage in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
AB 1863 (Harman) in 2006 would have allowed the jury to decide
if punitive damages were warranted, but would have a judge
determine the amount. The bill failed in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
SB 1429 (Morrow) in 2006 would have provided for the "government
standards defense." The author chose not to present the bill in
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 1934 (Honda) of 1997 would have similarly capped non-economic
damages to $250,000 in all actions for damages resulting from a
computer date failure, as defined. The bill failed in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 1862 (Morrow) of 1995 would have similarly limited punitive
damages to three times actual damages. The bill failed passage
in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 241 (Lockyer, Ch. 1498 of 1987) required, among other things,
proof of punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence,
required the court, upon application of any defendant, to
bifurcate the trial on the issue of punitive damages, and revise
the definitions of "malice" and "oppression" to require
"despicable" conduct for a finding of punitive damages
liability.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Chamber of Commerce
Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Association of California Insurance Companies
Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies
California Association of Health Facilities
California Chapter of the American Fence Association
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
AB 2740
Page 15
California Civil Justice Association
California Fence Contractors Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Retailers Association
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Engineering Contractors Association
Flasher/Barricade Association
Marin Builders Association
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Opposition
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Watchdog
Congress of California Seniors
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Barry Jardini / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334