Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard

Supreme Court of Florida · 1999 · Torts

TortsPunitive Damagespunitive damagesremittiturexcessive verdictclear and convincing evidencesection 768.73abuse of discretion

Facts

Ballard sued Owens-Corning alleging exposure in the 1960s and 1970s to Kaylo, an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Owens-Corning, and the jury found Owens-Corning negligent and strictly liable, awarding $1.8 million in compensatory damages and finding punitive damages warranted. In the punitive phase, evidence showed Owens-Corning had for decades concealed and misrepresented the dangers of asbestos in Kaylo, including advertising the product as non-toxic after being told asbestos was toxic and a carcinogen, contaminating a supposedly asbestos-free version, refusing to market a less dangerous substitute because it was less profitable, refusing to warn consumers, and declining significant efforts to remove asbestos because it offered no sales growth potential. Evidence also showed Owens-Corning's net worth was approximately $2.5 billion and that its asbestos liabilities would have no significant impact on the company. The jury awarded $31 million in punitive damages, and the trial court denied remittitur, finding clear and convincing evidence supported the award despite its exceeding three times compensatory damages.

Issue

Whether, under section 768.73(1), a punitive damages award almost eighteen times compensatory damages may stand despite the statutory presumption of excessiveness when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the award is justified by the facts and circumstances presented to the jury. More specifically, the question was whether the trial court properly concluded that the presumption was overcome in light of Owens-Corning's egregious misconduct and financial condition.

Rule

Under section 768.73(1), punitive damages exceeding three times compensatory damages are presumed excessive and the defendant is entitled to remittitur of the excess unless the claimant demonstrates to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the award is not excessive in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact. Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter, and their amount remains largely within the jury's discretion, subject to judicial review under the statute and appellate review for abuse of discretion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Jacksonville, Dana Mercer sued Gulf Ridge Insulation, Inc. after years of exposure to a construction sealant that the company had long known released fibers causing fatal lung disease. The jury awarded Dana $2 million in compensatory damages and $12 million in punitive damages after evidence showed company executives concealed test results, falsely advertised the product as safe, and rejected a safer substitute because it would cut profits; the company’s net worth was $1.8 billion.

Under the majority’s approach, what is the strongest basis for the trial court to deny the defendant’s request for remittitur of the punitive award?

Explanation. When punitive damages exceed three times compensatory damages, the award is presumed excessive, but the presumption may be overcome if the claimant demonstrates to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the award is not excessive in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the jury. Egregious misconduct and substantial financial condition are relevant, but there is no automatic percentage-of-net-worth safe harbor. (Derived from Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (n.d.).)