Insurance
Jan. 18, 2006
Court Keeps Focus on Reprehensibility In Reviewing Punitive-Damages Awards
For a while, the state Supreme Court did not substantively address the issue of punitive damages until its important decisions last June in Simon v. San Paulo U.S. Holding Co. Inc. , 35 Cal.4th 917 (2005), and Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. , 35 Cal.4th 1191 (2005).
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
By Rex Heeseman
For a while, the state Supreme Court did not substantively address the issue of punitive damages until its important decisions last June in Simon v. San Paulo U.S. Holding Co. Inc., 35 Cal.4th 917 (2005), and Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In