Legal Research on the laws, which impose caps or limits on punitive Paper

Legal on the laws, which impose caps or limits on punitive damages for tort recovery in all the states of USA - Research Paper Example Alabama Alabama Code S. 6-5-410 (a) states that punitive damages can be levied for unfair actions, negligence or omission of any individual or company. Upon proving negligence, the above section allows to claim for punitive damages. S 6-11-20(a) permits for punitive damages in civil cases where it has been demonstrated that â€Å"the defendant wantonly or consciously involved in fraud, malice or fraud.† For proving malice and fraud, there should be a presence of an intentional act. Alabama State proscribes the award of punitive damages in litigation against a master when a case is filed under vicarious liability or against state agencies. Alaska Sec.09.17.020 of Alaska statute permits to claim punitive damages.As per this section , the punitive damages for outrageous , reckless acts will be awarded either of the following, and it should not exceed the greater of ; Three times of compensatory damages levied to the claimant. â€Å"A sum of $ 500,000.† There are separate limits for employees who have been injured by the action of employers. If a claimant is awarded punitive damages, then the court will insist that half of the punitive damages awarded shall have to be paid into general fund of the state. If the punitive damages is covered by an insurance policy , then the insurer will have to pay the punitive damages to the claimant on behalf of the defendant unless if there is any exclusion clause for the coverage of PD.PD. Christopher T.Stidvent , Tort Reform in Alaska : Much Ado about Nothing? , 16 Alaska L.Rev. 61 (1999) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 3 Arizona There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Arizona. However , there exists case laws on the subject. In Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v Winston & Strawn , it was held that for recovering punitive damages under Arizona’s law , the claimant has to demonstrate that defendant involved in outrageous and aggravated demeanor with an ‘evil mind’. The same view was held in some Arizona cases like Rawlings v Apodaca , Thompson v Better-Bit Aluminums Prod. Co also. In†Gurule v Illinois Mutual Life & Cas. Co.† , it was held that if a defendant acts with the required evil mind , thereby by defrauding , injuring or intentionally mediating with the privileges of others , by disrespecting the risk of poignant harm to them. Bruce C .King and Carol J.Patterson, Ethics, 25 Construction Lawyer Journal. 5, (2005) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 4 Arkansas Under ARK CODE ANN  § 16-55-207 as amended in 2010 , a claimant should convince the onus of evidence demanded under  § 16-55-206 by obvious and convincing proof so as to recover punitive damages