Cal. Civ. Code § 3294

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for fraudulent concealment when the plaintiff suffered actual damage, even if its amount is unspecified.

Werschkull v. United California Bank · filed 1978-10-30

We conclude that, under the reasoning of such decisions, the jurors’ finding in this case that plaintiffs suffered actual damages in some unspecified amount as a result of UCB’s fraudulent acts of concealment, furnishes ample support for their award of punitive damages.

Section 3294’s actual damages requirement can be met by damages applied as an offset, even when the victim has no net recovery.

Esparza v. Specht · filed 1976-01-20

We thus look to the “actual damages” requirement of section 3294 to determine a defrauded party’s entitlement to punitive damages. ... We conclude that for purposes of finding actual damages to justify recovery of punitive damages it is sufficient that the defrauded party show a damage, and not that he must show bottomline damages, i.e., damages over and above all the cross-claims of the perpetrator of the fraud.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct warrants them, even if actual damages are minimal.

Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc. · filed 1977-01-18

However, as nominal or minimal as actual damage may be in the instant case, if Civic’s conduct was such that the trier of fact determines that a punitive damages award is in order, it matters not whether actual damages were minimal in nature.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when a tortious act caused actual harm, even if the injured party receives no compensatory award or only nominal damages.

Carr v. Progressive Casualty Insurance · filed 1984-03-07

Thus, the requirement of “actual damages” imposed by Civil Code section 3294 is simply the requirement that a tortious act be proven if punitive damages are to be assessed. Consequently, if damages are actually suffered, punitive damages may be awarded in appropriate cases even if the injured party is not awarded compensatory damages or is only awarded nominal damages.

Section 3294(a) requires an award of actual damages for fraud before punitive damages can be recovered.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lehman · filed 1984-08-23(a)

Finally, punitive damages cannot be recovered absent an award of actual damages for fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Section 3294 does not allow punitive damages in the absence of actual damages.

Fuhrman v. California Satellite Systems · filed 1986-03-28(a)

In the absence of actual damages, punitive damages are not recoverable.

Section 3294 requires actual damages before exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded.

Kizer v. County of San Mateo · filed 1991-03-28

In California, as at common law, actual damages are an absolute predicate for an award of exemplary or punitive damages.

Section 3294’s punitive damages rule for intoxicated drivers applies retroactively to accidents and complaints predating Taylor.

Peterson v. Superior Court · filed 1982-04-08

Their petition presents the question whether the rule announced in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 [157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854], that punitive damages are recoverable from an intoxicated driver who causes personal injury, should apply retroactively to accidents that occurred or complaints filed before this court decided Taylor on August 21, 1979. Assessing the considerations governing retroactive application of overruling decisions, we conclude that the Taylor rule should be applied retroactively.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for intoxicated driving when the circumstances show conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.

Taylor v. Superior Court · filed 1979-08-21

As will appear, we have concluded that the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of “malice” under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.

Section 3294 does not support punitive damages in a products liability case involving no personal injury or other egregious injury merely because the defendants knew the product was defective.

Gawara v. United States Brass Corp. · filed 1998-04-17(c)(1)

We believe this type of products liability case, where the plaintiffs suffered no personal injury or any other egregious injury does not merit an award of punitive damages.

Section 3294 applies to strict products liability claims based on design defects.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1981-05-29

We find no statutory impediments to the application of Civil Code section 3294 to a strict products liability case based on design defect.

An award of punitive damages requires evidence of the defendant’s financial condition sufficient to review the amount awarded.

Washington v. Farlice · filed 1991-12-10

The judgment as to the amount of punitive damages is reversed and remanded to the trial court for re-determination based on evidence of appellant’s financial condition at the time of re-trial.

In determining punitive damages under Section 3294, the jury uses the defendant’s net worth at the time of trial.

Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. · filed 1979-12-31

It has been determined that the jury should make its determination of the punitive damages based on defendant’s net worth at the time of trial. ... The trial court correctly ruled this evidence admissible.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud or malice, with the defendant’s financial condition an essential factor in setting the amount.

Simon v. San Paolo US Holding Co., Inc. · filed 2005-06-16(a)

Where the defendant’s oppression, fraud or malice has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, California law permits the recovery of punitive damages “for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) As we explained in Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d at page 928, and Adams v. Murakami, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pages 110-112, the defendant’s financial condition is an essential factor in fixing an amount that is sufficient to serve these goals without exceeding the necessary level of punishment.

A punitive damages award requires meaningful evidence of the defendant's ability to pay, normally including evidence of liabilities alongside assets.

Baxter v. Peterson · filed 2007-05-08(a)

Thus, there should be some evidence of the defendant's actual wealth. Normally, evidence of liabilities should accompany evidence of assets, and evidence of expenses should accompany evidence of income.

A punitive damages award under section 3294 requires meaningful evidence of the defendant’s ability to pay; evidence of assets without liabilities was insufficient.

Baxter v. Peterson · filed 2007-05-08(a)

Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) permits an award of punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” ... In sum, although the record shows that Peterson owns substantial assets, it is silent with respect to her liabilities. The record is thus insufficient for a reviewing court to evaluate Peterson’s ability to pay $75,000 in punitive damages. ... We therefore reverse the punitive damages award.

A defendant who fails to comply with a subpoena for financial records is estopped from challenging a punitive damages award for lack of evidence of ability to pay.

Corenbaum v. Lampkin · filed 2013-04-30

In light of Lampkin’s failure to comply with the subpoena for records, we conclude that he is estopped from challenging the punitive damage awards based on lack of evidence of his financial condition or insufficiency of the evidence to establish his ability to pay the amount awarded.

A punitive damages award under Section 3294 cannot stand without meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition and ability to pay.

Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. CA2/4 · filed 2015-07-15(a)

We agree with BWMT that the record lacks meaningful evidence of BWMT’s financial condition and ability to pay a punitive damages award. We accordingly conclude that the award must be reversed on that basis.

Section 3294 does not restrict the imposition of statutory treble damages under a local residential rent ordinance.

Beeman v. Burling · filed 1990-01-09

Since we have concluded Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 do not restrict the imposition of statutory damages, section 37.9(f) is valid so long as it does not impinge on an area covered by any state law.

Section 3294’s punitive damages remedy does not preempt a local treble damages remedy that serves a different legislative objective.

Kelly v. Yee · filed 1989-08-22

Treble damages under section 37.9, subdivision (f) of the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance serve an entirely different legislative objective than punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.

When punitive damages are awarded under section 3294, damages for the same injury should not also be doubled or tripled under section 3346.

Baker v. Ramirez · filed 1987-04-01

However, due to the penal nature of these provisions, the damages should be neither doubled nor tripled under section 3346 if punitive damages are awarded under section 3294.

Section 3294 does not permit punitive damages for the same conduct when the plaintiff elects a civil penalty and related recovery under section 1794.

Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. · filed 1985-12-04

We are of the opinion that had the Legislature, by Civil Code sections 3294 (permitting punitive damages) and 1794 (permitting a civil penalty), intended a double recovery of punitive and penal damages for the same willful, oppressive, malicious, and oppressive acts, it would in some appropriate manner have said so. And we believe that by seeking a “civil penalty” and also attorney’s fees and all reasonable expenses as allowed by Civil Code section 1794, plaintiff had in effect elected to waive punitive damages under section 3294.

Section 3294 allows punitive damages based on malice or oppression, but a plaintiff must elect between punitive damages and statutory treble damages for the same injury.

Marshall v. Brown · filed 1983-03-28

Since this purpose is the same as the treble damages authorized by Labor Code section 1054, we do not sanction a double recovery for the plaintiff. In the new trial on damages, the jury should be instructed on the subject of punitive damages based on malice or oppression. (See BAJI No. 14.71.) Any verdict finding compensatory damages must be trebled by the court. Plaintiff may then elect to have judgment entered in an amount which reflects either the statutory trebling, or the compensatory and punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits double recovery in some circumstances through exemplary damages.

Alhino v. Starr · filed 1980-11-17

Mason-McDuffie also erroneously attempts to rely on the rule against double recovery. As pointed out in ... double recovery is expressly permitted by Civil Code section 3294 in some circumstances.

Section 3294 allows exemplary damages in a tort action, which is inconsistent with a claim for money had and received.

Steiner v. Rowley · filed 1950-08-11

An action for tort in which exemplary damages are sought is inconsistent with one for money had and received. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) The Steiners were therefore required to make a timely election of remedies.

Section 3294 does not permit punitive damages based solely on market share liability; the plaintiff must identify the supplier whose product caused the injury and prove that supplier acted with malice or oppression.

Magallanes v. Superior Court · filed 1985-05-03(a)

We hold that in the context of the case at bench, in order to impose punitive damages the plaintiff must first identify the defendant who supplied the DES which was ingested by the plaintiff’s mother and caused the damage complained of and also prove that that defendant acted with malice or oppression. Consequently, punitive damages cannot be alleged in a case in which liability is based solely upon the participation of the defendant in the market.

Section 3294(a) does not make a compensatory award punitive merely because the arbitrator says the damages may deter misconduct.

Cobler v. Stanley, Barber, Southard, Brown & Associates · filed 1990-01-24(a)

This contention is meritless in light of the arbitrator’s companion statement that he did not find it necessary to rule on the fraud claims; accordingly, he could not have awarded punitive damages based on fraud, oppression, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294 (a).) Read as a whole, the award shows an intention to award purely compensatory damages.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages in arbitration when the claim is covered by the arbitration agreement.

Baker v. Sadick · filed 1984-12-12(a)

To conclude arbitration is not an action for purposes of Civil Code section 3294 would be in disregard of another purpose of arbitration. Arbitration serves as a substitute for proceedings in court. As a substitute, arbitration would not be encouraged by a decision which effectively holds a claim which may otherwise be asserted in a court of law may not be asserted in arbitration.

Section 3294 permits exemplary damages for fraudulent conversion, but a jury decides whether to award them and in what amount.

Haines v. Parra · filed 1987-08-10(a)

This would support an award of exemplary damages under Civil Code section 3294. The decision whether to award such damages was, however, one for a jury rather than the trial court (absent a waiver of the right to trial by jury, which did not occur in this case).

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for conduct showing conscious disregard for others’ safety, but the jury may decline to award them even when the evidence would support an award.

Sumpter v. Matteson · filed 2008-01-10(c)(1)

Such conduct reflects a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others and would have supported the imposition of punitive damages in this case. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) ... Therefore, although on this record the imposition of punitive damages would have been permissible, it was the jury’s exclusive prerogative, after being duly instructed, to find Matteson acted without malice and thereby decline to award punitive damages.

Section 3294(a)’s clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement does not change the substantial-evidence standard of appellate review.

Patrick v. Maryland Casualty Co. · filed 1990-02-20(a)

We reject appellant’s argument that a more stringent standard than the normal substantial evidence rule should apply due to the 1987 amendments to Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) which required that the trier of fact find “clear and convincing evidence” of malice, fraud, or oppression.

Section 3294(a)’s clear-and-convincing burden at trial does not change the standard of appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence.

In Re the Marriage of Murray · filed 2002-08-26(a)

Our review is the same regardless of the burden of proof at trial.

Section 3294(a) does not permit evidence of a defendant’s dissimilar acts to establish malice, fraud, or oppression as the basis for punitive damages.

Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. · filed 2008-03-04(a)

We further conclude that in order to comply with due process, the proscription of “dissimilar acts” evidence in punitive damages cases must apply to both the jury’s predicate determination whether a defendant is liable for punitive damages (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a)), as well as to its subsequent evaluation of a defendant’s reprehensibility in assessing the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.

When fraud is not at issue, wrongful termination alone does not establish the malice or oppression required for punitive damages under section 3294.

Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. · filed 2009-06-30(c)(1), (c)(2)

Based upon the foregoing cases, we conclude that wrongful termination, without more, will not sustain a finding of malice or oppression.

A punitive damages finding under section 3294(a) must be retried when inconsistent verdict findings undermine its basis.

Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2010-07-01(a)

Moreover, we believe that this inconsistency in the special verdict findings also extends to the finding that defendants had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a)), which finding apparently was based on the same alleged misconduct. ... The issue of malice, oppression, or fraud and the amount of punitive damages, if any, must be retried.

A reduction in compensatory damages does not automatically require reversal or retrial of a punitive damages award.

Behr v. Redmond · filed 2011-03-02

Neither Auerbach nor Krusi stands for the proposition that an award of punitive damages must be reversed and retried whenever the Court of Appeal *537reduces an award of compensatory damages.

Section 3294’s malice standard permits an instruction defining despicable conduct with the word “mean” when the instruction also requires conduct that reasonable people would despise.

Sacramento Sikh Society Bradshaw Temple v. Tatla · filed 2013-09-24(c)(1)

In order to satisfy the instruction, conduct that is merely selfish in a petty way or unkind would also have to be the type that reasonable people would normally look down upon and despise. Hence, while we would discourage efforts by the parties or the trial court to modify or clarify the pattern jury instructions, we find the addition of the word “mean” in this instance did not lessen the Society‟s burden of proof.

Section 3294 punitive damages require aggravated misconduct; Probate Code section 859 double damages are a distinct statutory remedy.

Hill v. Superior Court · filed 2016-02-18(a)

That double damages under section 859 are not punitive “damages recoverable under Section 3294 of the Civil Code” is also demonstrated by the many differences between them.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages despite an award of statutory penalties under Civil Code section 1942.5.

Fernandes v. Singh · filed 2017-10-05

Singh also argues that because the trial court imposed statutory penalties it could not award punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. But Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (h), provides that statutory penalties are "in addition to any other remedies" provided by law.

Section 3294(c)(1) allows a finding of malice for punitive damages when a jury could credit evidence that an employer intentionally misinterpreted an employee's medical clearance.

Kelly v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2017-12-04(c)(1)

Kelly argues that Walmart's agents intentionally misinterpreted (in a self-serving fashion) Dr. Tecoma's letter (Doc. 31-3 Ex. L) indicating she was fit to return to work without presenting a risk of harm to herself or others. Viewing all evidence in favor of Plaintiff as the non-moving party, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could credit this argument and thereby find that Walmart acted maliciously. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as to the prayer for punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits exemplary damages for an assault when the evidence establishes malice in fact.

McAfee v. Ricker · filed 1961-09-15

It is clear that the evidence supports the findings and the findings do support the judgment, not only as to special and general damages but also as to the exemplary damages awarded. ... The question of malice in fact was sufficiently established.