Sentences with phrase «punitive damage risk»

We describe a new quantitative approach to pricing punitives and identify a characteristic structure to punitive damage risk...

Not exact matches

Lessor - Strict Liability Last Clear Chance Assumption of Risk Comparative Negligence Other Similar Accidents Lay & Expert Witnesses Videos & Pictures Daubert Challenges Later Product Changes Punitive Damages Hawaii Accident Lawyer

The problem with aggravated damages relates to their tendency to overlap with general damages and punitive damages, creating the risk of overcompensation.

If the agreement is breached, then your personal assets may be at risk to satisfy the punitive damages or the credit claims.

But, extreme awards drive up the costs of litigation and produce pressure on corporations to settle weak cases rather than run the risk of out - of - whack punitive damages.

By claiming that her habits were a direct result of the company not adequately warning her of the risks present with smoking cigarettes, she received punitive damages of $ 28 million, plus $ 850,000 of compensatory damages.

Act 2, including: changes to Wisconsin's product liability laws; adding Daubert standards for cases tried in Wisconsin involving expert opinion and evidence; eliminating the controversial «risk contribution» theory created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 2005 Thomas v. Mallett decision; placing caps on punitive damages; and reducing frivolous lawsuits by holding parties liable for costs and fees for filing frivolous claims.

Landmark reforms relating to product liability, expert opinion testimony, risk contribution, and caps on punitive damages, among others, turned Wisconsin's souring litigation and business climate into one of the most competitive jurisdictions in the country from a litigation standpoint.

Rather than risking punitive damages, most insurance carriers will attempt to settle a disputed claim — but only if the insured's legal counsel can substantiate its position with a well - articulated basis for bad faith.

Much of the damages awarded by the juries in these first two verdicts was punitive — to punish Johnson & Johnson for concealing the risks while still marketing these products as safe.

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

It is important that such claims are genuine; after - acquired cause runs the risk of damaging an employees reputation and in the event that it is proven the employer did so dishonestly, the employee may also be entitled to punitive damages.

In the world before the Supreme Court's recent Philip Morris decision, the risk of giving the plaintiff — who might only be one of many victims of the defendant's conduct — the entire punitive damages award was that it would more likely undermine the state's in - terest in ensuring a fair distribution of both compensatory and retributive damages for oth - ers, since a crippling retributive damages award might impair the availability of adequate compensation funds (or punitive damages) for future claimants.

The $ 43 million verdict included $ 25 million in punitive damages after jurors agreed that the hospital's conduct involved an extreme risk of potential harm to others.

To hold otherwise is to risk double - recovery in the event that punitive damages are also awarded.

Except where forbidden by law, under all circumstances, HUAWEI will accept no responsibility for all indirect, derivative, incidental, collateral, or punitive damages that may be incurred from usage of this website, including but not limited to profit loss, even if HUAWEI is already aware of the potential risks.

Co. v. Burr, substantially increased the risk of punitive damages under the FCRA by ruling that a reckless disregard of the FCRA could be sufficient to show «willful» non-compliance.