Ala. Code § 6-11-21

For most civil actions, subsection (a) caps punitive damages at the greater of three times the claimant's compensatory damages or $500,000.

Krikorian v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2019-11-06(a)

Even if Krikorian’s compensatory damages are relatively small, Ala. Code § 6-11-21(a) permits an award of up to $500,000 in punitive damages if three times the compensatory damages amount is less.

Section 6-11-21 limits pattern and practice evidence to determining the amount of punitive damages.

Ex Parte Moebes · filed 1997-11-14

However, pattern and practice evidence is for one purpose only — determining the amount of punitive damages.

Section 6-11-21 limits pattern and practice evidence to determining the amount of punitive damages.

Moebes v. Tony Moore Buick-GMC Trucks, Inc. · filed 1997-11-14

However, pattern and practice evidence is for one purpose only- — determining the amount of punitive damages. Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-21.

Section 6-11-21(j) excludes wrongful-death actions from the rule allowing punitive damages to be apportioned among joint tortfeasors.

Boles v. Parris · filed 2006-08-18(j)

By creating a specific exception in § 6-11-21(j) and preserving the judicially created rule, the legislature has spoken clearly in favor of nonapportionment in wrongful-death cases.

Subsection (j) excludes wrongful-death actions and actions for intentional infliction of physical injury from this section.

Mobile Infirmary Ass'n v. Tyler · filed 2007-09-14(j)

Unlike Hodgen, which involved only claims arising out of nonfatal injuries a patient suffered as a result of medical malpractice, this case involves a wrongful-death claim. Therefore, § 6-11-21(j), Ala.Code 1975, rather than § 6-11-21(d), would apply to this case.

Section 6-11-21(d) caps punitive damages at three times the claimant's compensatory damages or $1.5 million, whichever is greater, including compensatory damages that could have been awarded.

Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen · filed 2003-10-31(d)

We are here presented with an opportunity in a proper case to apply the holding of Smith addressing compensatory damages that could have been awarded, in the context of the renewed vitality of § 6-5-545, which abrogates the collateral-source rule. In such situations, a special interrogatory should be propounded to the jury that gives the jury the opportunity to state the amount of compensatory damages it would have awarded, but did not so award because of the evidence of the availability of compensation to the plaintiff from a collateral source. Armed with such information, the trial court can apply the cap set forth in § 6-11-21(d) by determining "the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages."

Section 6-11-21(a) caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.

CNH America, LLC v. Ligon Capital, LLC · filed 2013-11-08(a)

Section 6-11-21(a) provides generally that “no award of punitive damages shall exceed three times the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), whichever is greater.” The punitive damages awarded in this case — $7.6 million — are two times the compensatory damages — $3.8 million.

Section 6-11-21 limits punitive damages to three times compensatory damages or the adjusted statutory minimum, whichever is greater.

Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc. · filed 2017-09-29(a)

Section 6-11-21(a), Ala. Code 1975, limits punitive-damage awards in cases such as this one to "three times the compensatory damages ... or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), whichever is greater."

For the small-business punitive-damages cap, “net worth” is determined using the most commonly accepted definition, based on fair market value or generally accepted accounting principles, rather than a privilege-tax definition.

Davis v. White · filed 2022-08-03(c)

Given that § 6-11-21(c) regards a punitive damage cap, not issues of privilege taxes, the definition of net worth should be the most commonly accepted definition. Without direction by the Alabama legislature, a definition of net worth when calculating how much a company owes in privilege taxes is not the most commonly accepted definition. The legislature, when enacting § 6-11-21(c), could have incorporated the definition in § 40-14A-23(b). However, the legislature did not. Given the silence on the definition, §§ 8-7A-10; 11-51-154; 40-2A-7; and 11-51-191 offer other guidance contradicting § 40-14A-23(b). All the above Code sections state that net worth is calculated based on fair market value or in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. ... Further, as to Defendants SERMA, Builder1, and Eco-Preservation LLC, the small business cap § 6-11-21(c) does not bar the current amount in punitive damages. Defendants' net worth exceeds $2,000,000 under the appropriate calculation, and Defendants are not small businesses.

Section 6-11-21(c) defines a small business by net worth of $2 million or less at the time of the occurrence, and the court held that net worth for this punitive-damages cap is calculated using the commonly accepted definition based on fair market value or generally accepted accounting principles, rather than a privilege-tax definition.

Lawrence v. White · filed 2022-08-03(c)

Given that § 6-11-21(c) regards a punitive damage cap, not issues of privilege taxes, the definition of net worth should be the most commonly accepted definition. Without direction by the Alabama legislature, a definition of net worth when calculating how much a company owes in privilege taxes is not the most commonly accepted definition. The legislature, when enacting § 6-11-21(c), could have incorporated the definition in § 40-14A-23(b). However, the legislature did not. Given the silence on the definition, §§ 8-7A-10; 11-51-154; 40-2A-7; and 11-51-191 offer other guidance contradicting § 40-14A-23(b). All the above Code sections state that net worth is calculated based on fair market value or in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

For the small-business punitive-damages cap, “net worth” is calculated using the commonly accepted approach under generally accepted accounting principles, based on fair-market value rather than the privilege-tax definition.

Slone v. White · filed 2022-08-03(c)

Within § 6-11-21(c), there is no mathematical calculation to determine what net worth should mean. “Net worth” stands alone, inviting conflicting definitions from the parties and their respective experts. ... Given the silence on the definition, §§ 8-7A-10; 11-51-154; 40-2A-7; and 11-51-191 offer other guidance contradicting § 40-14A-23(b). All the above Code sections state that net worth is calculated based on fair market value or in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. ... Therefore, the Court will base its opinion on whether Defendants are small businesses using Plaintiffs’ expert who followed generally accepted accounting principles when determining Defendants’ net worth. ... Since none of Defendants' businesses are below $2,000,000 in net worth, the businesses are not subject to the cap on punitive damages in § 6-11-21(c).

For a small business, punitive damages are capped at $50,000 or 10% of net worth, whichever is greater, and small business status depends on net worth at the time of the occurrence.

Tanner v. Ebbole · filed 2011-09-23(b), (c)

We conclude that Hammond-Green Oil factor (4) does not weigh against the punitive-damages awards against Averette and Tanner but that the punitive-damages award against Demented Needle, LLC, is excessive to the extent it is greater than the $50,000 statutory cap set forth in § 6-11 — 21(b).

Subsection (b) limits punitive damages against a small business to $50,000 or 10 percent of the business’ net worth, whichever is greater, subject to subsections (d) and (j).

Line v. Ventura · filed 2009-05-22(b)

Line also makes an argument that the award of punitive damages against him must be limited by the application of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-21(b), which provides: ... “Except as provided in subsection (d) and (j), in all civil actions where entitlement to punitive damages shall have been established under applicable law against a defendant who is a small business, no award of punitive damages shall exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or 10 percent of the business’ net worth, whichever is greater.” ... We reject this argument because, even if we were to hold that the operation of Line’s legal practice was a "small business" within the ambit of the statute, it is plain from the record that the punitive-damages award was not related to the operation of Line’s practice of law.

Section 6-11-21(c) requires evidence of a business’s financial condition at the time of the underlying occurrence to establish the small-business punitive damages limit.

Ross v. Rosen-Rager · filed 2010-11-24(c)

Indeed, the evidence he did offer as to his financial condition was referable only to the time of trial and later, rather than to the “time of the occurrence made the basis of the suit,” as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 6—11—21(c), to establish the specific damages limitations provided in § 6-ll-21(b) for “a small business.”