Idaho Code § 6-1604

A party waives an objection to a punitive damages claim that does not comply with Section 6-1604(2)’s pleading procedure by failing to object when the claim is fully tried.

Mikesell v. Newworld Development Corp. · filed 1992-09-01(2)

By failing to raise a timely objection to the Mikesells’ claim for punitive damages, Newworld waived the right to object. Because the issue of punitive damages was fully tried by the parties, the district court should have treated the issue as if it had been properly pled. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s conclusion that the Mikesells’ failure to comply with I.C. § 6-1604(2) barred their recovery of punitive damages, and we remand for the district court to determine whether an award of punitive damages is warranted in this case.

Section 6-1604 bars an initial pleading from seeking punitive damages, and a court may dismiss a counterclaim that violates that rule.

Harwood v. Talbert · filed 2001-12-28(2)

Here, Talbert’s counterclaim clearly requested punitive damages in her initial pleading and stated the amount requested contrary to I.C. § 6-1604 and I.R.C.P. 9(g). ... Although the district court has the option to strike the portion of the counterclaim that states the amount of the punitive damages requested, the court also has the option to grant a motion to dismiss. We leave that decision within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a party seeking punitive damages to amend the complaint after a pretrial hearing permitting the amendment.

King v. Lang · filed 2002-02-26(2)

If a party wishes to seek punitive damages, that party must amend the complaint after a pretrial hearing permitting the amendment. No such proceeding took place. Therefore, the district court properly ordered that these claims be stricken from French’s pleadings.

Section 6-1604(2) requires leave of court to add a punitive damages claim to a pleading, based on a pretrial showing of a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Bach v. Bagley · filed 2010-03-17(2)

What Bach overlooks is Idaho Code section 6-1604, which does not allow punitive damages to be added to a pleading without leave of the district court. I.C. § 6-1604(2). In order to add a claim for punitive damages, the moving party must demonstrate to the court in a pretrial hearing that there is a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support a punitive damage award.

Section 6-1604 requires a party seeking punitive damages on a state law claim to move to amend after discovery rather than plead them in the complaint.

Collier v. TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, LLC · filed 2011-06-22

Collier's punitive damage claim for her state law causes of action is governed by Idaho Code § 6-1604. That statute forbids pleading punitive damages in the complaint but requires instead a motion to amend once discovery has been completed. The Court will therefore strike the punitive damage claim in the complaint to the extent it relates to Collier's state law claims, and will require Collier to bring a separate motion to amend to add that claim.

Section 6-1604(2) permits denial of an untimely motion to add a punitive damages claim.

Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp. · filed 1999-03-29(2)

The district court denied the motions on the basis that the motions were untimely. ... As to Michettis’ claim, we uphold the district court’s conclusion. I.C. § 6-1604(2).

Section 6-1604(2) governs motions to amend pleadings to add a punitive damages claim; it does not govern whether to instruct a jury on punitive damages after the evidence closes.

Bendocchi v. Howmedica, Inc. · filed 2001-01-18(2)

While section 6-1604(2) controls the disposition of a motion to amend pleadings to state a punitive damages claim-normally, as the statute contemplates, in the pretrial eontext-it does not address the central issue before us: the exercise of the court’s discretion whether to instruct a jury on punitive damages after the close of evidence.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a plaintiff to obtain leave of court to claim punitive damages.

White v. Oxarc, Inc. · filed 2021-09-16(2)

Plaintiff may not claim punitive damages under Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) because he failed to move for leave to do so.

Section 6-1604 does not bar punitive damages when the court makes the required findings and grants a motion to amend, but the plaintiff fails to file the amended complaint.

Paterson v. State · filed 1996-04-25

The district court made the requisite findings under I.C. § 6-1604, findings which the appellants do not contest on appeal, and granted Paterson’s motion to amend her complaint. In light of this, Paterson’s simple failure to file the amended complaint with the court should not bar her recovery.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a pretrial motion and court approval to add a punitive damages claim; after a hearing, the court must find a reasonable likelihood that the claimant can prove facts supporting such an award.

St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP · filed 2009-10-21(2)

A claim for punitive damages cannot be asserted in the claimant‟s pleading without the approval of the trial court. The claimant must make a pretrial motion, and, after a hearing, the trial court must conclude that the claimant has established a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(2) requires court approval before a party adds a punitive damages claim to an amended complaint.

Bach v. Harris · filed 2010-03-17(2)

What Bach overlooks is Idaho Code section 6-1604, which does not allow punitive damages to be added to a pleading without leave of the district court. ... Consequently, although Bach was entitled to amend his complaint, he was not granted leave to add a prayer for punitive damages; accordingly, the district court properly refused to award them.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a plaintiff to seek punitive damages through a pretrial motion to amend and show a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient for an award.

Strong v. Unumprovident Corp. · filed 2005-05-13(2)

Under Idaho Code § 6-1604(2), a plaintiff cannot make a claim for punitive damages in the original complaint; instead the claim must be made by a pretrial motion to amend. The Idaho statute directs a court to grant such a motion if “the court concludes that, the moving party has established at [a] hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.”

Section 6-1604(2) does not require a new hearing when a court that has already allowed a punitive damages claim after a pretrial hearing later decides to hold a unified trial.

Inland Group of Companies, Inc. v. Providence Washington Insurance Co. · filed 1999-08-12(2)

There was no need to hold a new hearing following the court’s decision to allow the unified trial.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a pretrial motion and court approval to add a punitive damages claim; approval requires a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP · filed 2010-01-12(2)

A claim for punitive damages cannot be asserted in the claimant’s pleading without the approval of the trial court. The claimant must make a pretrial motion, and, after a hearing, the trial court must conclude that the claimant has established a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. I.C. § 6-1604(2).

Section 6-1604(2) requires court permission to add a punitive damages claim, and a defendant’s belligerence and profanity alone do not justify allowing one.

Payne v. Wallace · filed 2001-08-14(2)

Wallace’s conduct, although utterly unjustified and deserving of condemnation, is not the sort of extreme and harmful behavior that will support an award of punitive damages. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Paynes’ motion to add a prayer for punitive damages to their complaint.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a party to obtain leave to amend before seeking punitive damages; a sufficiently final state court order granting leave can satisfy that requirement through issue preclusion.

Burks v. Bailey (In re Bailey) · filed 2013-08-23(2)

Under Idaho Code § 6-1604(2), a party may not request punitive damages in the original complaint. Instead, the party must move to amend the complaint to include punitive damages, and the trial court must then determine whether “the moving party has established at [an evidentiary] hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). ... As the Court concludes that the State Court’s determination was sufficiently final to qualify for issue preclusion, Plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold procedural requirement necessary to pursue punitive damages.

Section 6-1604 requires a party seeking punitive damages to move to amend the pleadings; reserving the right to seek them does not satisfy the statute.

Tahmisian v. Netacent, Inc. · filed 2024-11-19(2)

Here, Tahmisian’s complaint “reserves” the right to add a punitive damage claim, but such reservation is insufficient to satisfy Idaho Code § 6-1604.

Section 6-1604(2) sets a heightened standard for amending a pleading to seek punitive damages.

Crescent Mine, LLC v. Bunker Hill Mining Corporation · filed 2026-04-08(2)

However, I.C. § 6-1604(2) sets a higher bar for parties seeking to amend their pleading to add punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a court to allow a pretrial amendment seeking punitive damages when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Doe v. CUTTER BIOLOGICAL, a DIV. OF MILES INC. · filed 1994-02-24(2)

Therefore, with respect to Idaho Code § 6-1604(2), at least at this juncture, the court finds that plaintiff has established a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages, and therefore, the motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages will be granted.

Under the version of § 6-1604 applicable before the 2003 amendment, a claimant seeking to add punitive damages had to show a reasonable likelihood of proving qualifying conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vendelin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2004-07-01(2)

To support a motion to add punitive damages under I.C. § 6-1604, Vendelin was required to establish a reasonable likelihood she could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Costco acted oppressively, fraudulently, wantonly, maliciously or outrageously.

Section 6-1604(2) permits a claimant to amend a complaint to seek punitive damages after showing a reasonable likelihood of proving the required conduct at trial.

Myers v. Workmen's Auto Insurance · filed 2004-07-23(2)

To support her motion to add punitive damages under I.C. § 6-1604, Myers was required to establish a reasonable likelihood she could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Workmen’s Auto acted oppressively, fraudulently, wantonly, maliciously or outrageously.

Section 6-1604(2) allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to seek punitive damages upon showing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support such an award.

Hansen-Rice, Inc. v. Celotex Corp. · filed 2006-02-07(2)

To be entitled to amend, Hansen-Rice must establish “a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” ... Therefore, the Court finds that Hansen-Rice has met its “reasonable likelihood” standard, and is entitled to amend its complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient for punitive damages before a plaintiff may amend a complaint to seek them.

Adams v. United States · filed 2009-04-01(2)

For plaintiffs to be entitled to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages, they need to show “a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” ... For all of these reasons, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not shown “a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.”

Section 6-1604(2) permits a complaint to be amended to seek punitive damages when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient for an award.

Weinstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2010-06-01(2)

Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) provides, ―The court shall allow the motion to amend the pleadings [to add a claim for punitive damages] if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.‖ A trial court‘s ruling on a motion to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Todd v. Sullivan Constr. LLC, 146 Idaho 118, 121, 191 P.3d 196, 199 (2008). Liberty Mutual‘s unsupported statement that it was prejudiced by the amendment is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a court to allow an amendment seeking punitive damages when the evidence shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award.

Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois · filed 2016-07-27(2)

Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) provides that a court must allow a motion to amend pleadings to include punitive damages if, “after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” I.C. § 6-1604(2). ... In sum, because the Parks have not satisfied the three part abuse of discretion test the district court’s denial of the Parks’ motion to amend their complaint was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 6-1604(2) allows a party to amend its pleadings to seek punitive damages when it shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award.

The Roost Project, LLC v. Andersen Construction Company · filed 2020-02-04(2)

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds Roost has not shown a reasonable likelihood that ACCO performed bad acts with a bad state of mind.

Section 6-1604(2) allows a party to amend its pleadings to seek punitive damages when it shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Heeb v. Whipple Inc. · filed 2021-05-04(2)

Therefore, Plaintiffs have established a “reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial” sufficient to support a claim of punitive damages. If the jury finds Whipple liable for fraud, punitive damages are explicitly available under § 6-1604(2). Accordingly, the Motion will be granted.

To amend a pleading to seek punitive damages, a party must show a reasonable likelihood of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted oppressively, fraudulently, maliciously, or outrageously.

Magee v. J.R. Simplot Company · filed 2021-07-12(1), (2)

Putting the standards together, to succeed on their Motion to Amend, Plaintiffs must establish a reasonable likelihood of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous.

Section 6-1604(2) permits amendment to seek punitive damages after a hearing only when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Schuler v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC · filed 2021-07-29(2)

Idaho Code Section 6-1604 provides that, after an appropriate pretrial motion and a hearing, the court must allow a party to amend the pleadings “if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.”

Section 6-1604(2) permits a pretrial amendment seeking punitive damages only when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Lambirth v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-03(2)

The Court, in turn, should permit such amendment only if, “after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). ... With the aforementioned legal standard and the relevant factors in mind, and having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the entire record, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of showing USAA CIC engaged in conduct that was an extreme deviation from reasonable standards, and acted with an extremely harmful state of mind during the adjustment and appraisal of the insurance claim. Hall v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Insur. Co., 179 P.3d 276, 282 (Idaho 2007).

Section 6-1604(2) permits a plaintiff to add a punitive damages claim only upon a pretrial showing of a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Groenig v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · filed 2023-09-21(2)

A court, in turn, should permit such an amendment only if, “after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” ... Applying the above standard here, and after having weighed the evidence presented in the parties’ submittals and having considered the record in this matter, the Court finds that the facts comprising Safeco’s alleged bad acts and bad state of mind do not rise to an extreme deviation of industry standards or the requisite extremely harmful state of mind needed to pursue a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to amend the complaint.

Section 6-1604(2) allows a claimant to amend a pleading to seek punitive damages upon a reasonable likelihood of proving the required conduct at trial.

Scofield v. Guillard · filed 2024-06-06(2)

Still, a party may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after hearing before the court, amend the pleadings to include a claim for punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(2) permits a pretrial amendment to seek punitive damages only when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award.

Heit v. Livingston · filed 2025-06-30(2)

Because the Court is sitting in diversity, the Heits’ motion for leave to amend to allege punitive damages is governed by Idaho Code § 6-1604. ... The Court, in turn, should permit such an amendment only if, “after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that the moving party has established . . . a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Id. ... Accordingly, the Heits’ motion to add punitive damages is denied.

Section 6-1604(2) allows a party to add a punitive damages claim when it shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award.

Gerber-Siggelkow v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2021-05-11(2)

Idaho Code Section 6-1604 provides that, after an appropriate pretrial motion and a hearing, the court must allow a party to amend the pleadings “if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). ... Simply, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Allstate’s conduct rises to the level required to allow a claim for punitive damages to proceed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add a claim punitive damages will be denied.

Section 6-1604(2) permits a plaintiff to amend a pleading to seek punitive damages when, viewing the evidence favorably to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence supporting an award.

Sage Growth Capital Fund 1, LLC v. CPR Construction Cleaning · filed 2025-10-15(2)

Similarly, but in the inverse, under section 6-1604(2), courts view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant and give the movant the benefit of all legitimate inferences. In doing so, courts do not assess credibility or resolve any disputes of fact. Rather, so long as the movant shows that a reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence supporting punitive damages, courts allow the movant to seek punitive damages.

Section 6-1604 requires the court to weigh the evidence and allow an amendment seeking punitive damages when the moving party shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award.

Seiniger Law Office, P.A. v. North Pacific Insurance · filed 2008-01-25

The district court applied the correct legal standard when it ruled on Appellants’ claim for punitive damages. A court shall allow the motion to amend the pleadings if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. I.C. § 6-1604.

Section 6-1604(2) permits an amendment to seek punitive damages when the evidence shows a reasonable likelihood of proving a bad act and a bad state of mind at trial.

Hall v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance · filed 2008-02-13(2)

The court shall permit a plaintiffs motion to amend the pleadings to include a prayer for punitive damages “if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” I.C. § 6-1604(2). ... Therefore, a “reasonable likelihood” must exist that the defendant performed a bad act with a bad state of mind.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a court to weigh the evidence and allow an amendment seeking punitive damages when the claimant shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient to support an award.

Todd v. Sullivan Construction LLC · filed 2008-07-17(2)

When a party moves to amend a pleading to include a claim for punitive damages, “[t]he court shall allow the motion to amend the pleadings if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” I.C. § 6-1604(2). ... The district court did not conduct the analysis required by Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). By failing to do so, it abused its discretion.

Section 6-1604(2) requires the court to weigh the evidence when deciding whether to permit a punitive damages claim.

Nava v. TORO · filed 2011-11-30(2)

When a party is seeking permission to add a claim for punitive damages, the court makes the determination “after weighing the evidence presented.” I.C. § 6-1604(2).

Section 6-1604(2) permits a plaintiff to amend a pleading to seek punitive damages when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find the claim’s elements by clear and convincing evidence.

Cleaver v. Transnation Title & Escrow, Inc. · filed 2023-02-03(2)

So long as the movant shows that a reasonable jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of a punitive damage claim under Idaho law, the movant is permitted to add such a claim.

Section 6-1604(2) permits a plaintiff to add a punitive damages claim when the plaintiff is reasonably likely to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could award punitive damages.

Davis v. Blast Properties Inc. · filed 2023-02-03(2)

Applying the Rule 50 approach to interpreting section 6-1604(2), the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are reasonably likely to prove facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages, so as to avoid a Rule 50 motion at the close of the case.

Section 6-1604(2) requires a party seeking to add a punitive damages request to present substantial, admissible evidence supporting a legally cognizable claim.

Davis v. Blast · filed 2024-06-27(2)

The word “sufficient” means that the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages must be legally cognizable and the evidence presented must be substantial.

Section 6-1604(2) requires courts deciding whether to allow a punitive damages claim to view the evidence in the moving party’s favor and give that party the benefit of legitimate inferences.

Sage Growth Capital Fund I, LLC v. CPR Construction Cleaning, LLC · filed 2025-09-12(2)

Similarly, but in the inverse, under section 6- 1604(2), courts view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant and give the movant the benefit of all legitimate inferences.

Section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to weigh the evidence supporting a motion to add a punitive damages claim and determine whether the moving party is reasonably likely to prove sufficient facts at trial.

Garshelis v. Bennett · filed 2026-01-06(2)

Section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to weigh the evidence submitted by the moving party in support of its motion to amend to determine whether the moving party has established a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

Section 6-1604 does not permit punitive damages for failure to disclose a subsequently discovered fact when there is no duty to disclose it.

Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n · filed 1995-03-22(1)

As a matter of law, the failure to disclose a subsequently discovered fact, absent a duty to do so, is not such conduct that would support an award of punitive damages under I.C. § 6-1604.

Section 6-1604(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct for punitive damages; reckless conduct alone does not suffice.

Wood v. Loader (In Re Loader) · filed 2009-09-28(1)

However, Loader’s formulation of the standard for punitive damages is incorrect. As the state district judge noted, “[i]n any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.” Memorandum of Decision, Ex. 19 (citing Idaho Code § 6-1604(1) (emphasis added)). Reckless conduct is markedly absent from this standard.

Section 6-1604(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct to recover punitive damages.

Torrence v. McCay · filed 2011-03-11(1)

To recover punitive damages, a party must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted. I.C. § 6-1604(1). ... Therefore, the district court’s decision not to award the Torrences punitive damages was supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Section 6-1604 permits a punitive damages issue to go to the jury when sufficient evidence supports a finding of malicious or outrageous conduct.

Gunter v. Murphy's Lounge, LLC · filed 2005-01-14

We determine whether there was sufficient evidence a jury could find that the Defendant acted with aggressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct. See I.C. § 6-1604. ... On review, there was sufficient evidence a jury could find the Defendants acted in a manner that was malicious or outrageous. The district court was within its discretion to submit the punitive damages issue to the jury.

Section 6-1604(1) permits a court to deny punitive damages despite fraud when the claimant knowingly entered the illegal agreement underlying the claim.

Trees v. Kersey · filed 2002-09-12(1)

Idaho Code § 6-1604(1) provides the circumstances under which an award of punitive damages is allowed. ... While there was fraud, the agreement between the Treeses and the Kerseys was illegal. The Treeses knew that. Under these circumstances the award of punitive damages is not appropriate.

Section 6-1604(1) requires a claimant to prove oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence to recover punitive damages for a cause of action accruing after July 1, 2003.

Akers v. D.L. White · filed 2014-02-07(1)

The Whites properly assert that I.C. § 6-1604(1) provides the appropriate evidentiary standard for cases involving punitive damages. ... Idaho Code § 6-1604(1) provides that “[i]n any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Section 6-1604(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct to recover punitive damages.

Chavez v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company · filed 2024-04-24(1)

To recover punitive damages under Idaho law, a “claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Section 6-1604(1) requires oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct for punitive damages; gross negligence or deliberate or willful conduct alone is insufficient.

Cummings v. Roger L. Stephens and Northern Title Co of Idaho · filed 2014-09-19(1)

Since the enactment of the statute, gross negligence or deliberate or willful conduct is not sufficient for an award of punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(1) limits punitive damages to oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct; gross negligence or deliberate or willful conduct alone is insufficient.

Cummings v. Stephens · filed 2014-09-19(1)

That statute limits the award of punitive damages to situations in which there was "oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.” I.C. § 6-1604(1). Since the enactment of the statute, gross negligence or deliberate or willful conduct is not sufficient for an award of punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct to award punitive damages.

Burks v. Bailey · filed 2014-09-30(1)

To properly award punitive damages, the bankruptcy court was required to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bailey engaged in oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct. See Idaho Code § 6-1604(1). ... Given the bankruptcy court’s thorough treatment of the issue, and its obvious application of the correct evidentiary standard, the Court finds no error and no need for a remand for the purpose of applying the correct evidentiary standard.

Section 6-1604(1) permits punitive damages when a claimant proves fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

Choice Feed Inc. v. Montierth · filed 2021-02-09(1)

Because the jury found fraud, and punitive damages are explicitly available when a party proves fraud under Idaho Code section 6-1604(1), the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury to consider punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(1)'s proof standard for punitive damages did not apply to conduct from before the statute took effect.

O'NEIL v. Vasseur · filed 1990-01-26(1)

In order to recover punitive damages, "the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.” I.C. § 6-1604(1) (Supp.1989). This statute was not in effect in the time frame involved in this case.

Section 6-1604 applies only to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1987.

Mac Tools, Inc. v. Griffin · filed 1994-08-24

I.C. § 6-1604 is found in Section 1 of chapter 278 of the 1987 Session Laws. Therefore, I.C. § 6-1604 is inapplicable to this case.

Section 6-1604(1)’s clear and convincing evidence standard applies only to causes of action accruing after July 1, 2003.

Akers v. D.L. White Construction, Inc. · filed 2014-02-07(1)

The amendment requiring “clear and convincing” evidence explicitly only applies to “causes of action that accrue after July 1, 2003.”

Section 6-1604(3) caps punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times the compensatory damages in the judgment.

Alexander v. Stibal · filed 2016-02-26(3)

Since Alexander’s compensatory damages for fraud are $17,000, Idaho Code section 6-1604(3) authorizes an award of up to $250,000 in punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(3) caps punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times the compensatory damages.

Edmark Auto, Inc. v. Zurich, Inc. · filed 2020-01-09(3)

Idaho Code § 6-1604(3) states, “[n]o judgment for punitive damages shall exceed the greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) or an amount which is three (3) times the compensatory damages contained in such judgment.” Here, the cap would be $3,250,000 x 3 = $9,750,000 for Edmark and $1,750,000 x 3 = $5,250,000 for Chalfant. See Dkt. 324. Because The jury awarded $3,000,000 to each plaintiff, amounts well below the statutory cap, the Court finds the amounts reasonable under Idaho law, and that a reduction is unnecessary.

Section 6-1604 governs amendment of a complaint to seek punitive damages on state law claims.

Zazzali v. Ellison · filed 2013-09-24

Claims for punitive damages arising from state law cause of action are dismissed, with leave to amend as stated in the Report and Recommendation and in accordance wit the requirements of Idaho Code § 6-1604.

Section 6-1604 allows punitive damages for breach of a commercial contract when the claimant proves oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence; it caps the award rather than excluding contract claims.

Thurston and T3 v. Safeguard · filed 2019-02-19

In 2003, Idaho Code section 6-1604 was amended to require “[i]n any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.” (Emphasis added). The Legislature limited potential liability by capping punitive damages rather than limiting the type of claims that may warrant punitive damages.

Section 6-1604 caps punitive damages but does not exclude commercial contract claims from eligibility.

Thurston Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc. · filed 2019-02-19

The Legislature limited potential liability by capping punitive damages rather than limiting the type of claims that may warrant punitive damages.

Section 6-1604(2) applies in federal diversity cases and requires a hearing and a showing of a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient for punitive damages before a party may amend its pleading to seek them.

Windsor v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance · filed 1988-05-04(2)

After careful review of the applicable authorities, the Court holds that § 6-1604(2) is substantive in nature and therefore controlling in federal court in a diversity case.

Section 6-1604(2)’s heightened pleading standard for punitive damages does not apply in federal court, where Rule 8(a) governs the pleading.

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC · filed 2023-06-08(2)

Plaintiffs are therefore correct that the heightened pleading standard set forth in Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1604(2) does not apply here; instead, that issue is governed by Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 8(a).

Section 6-1604 supplies the substantive standard for motions to amend to add punitive damages in federal diversity cases.

The Roost Project, LLC v. Andersen Construction Company · filed 2020-07-10

Accordingly, the Court holds that Idaho Code § 6-1604 is substantive and, therefore, the applicable standard for determining the motion to amend to add punitive damages in this case.

Section 6-1604(2)’s requirement to obtain court permission before requesting punitive damages does not apply to a Title VII claim in federal court.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Elevation Labs, LLC · filed 2025-04-15(2)

But even if the Court were to read Rule 12(f) more liberally—asking whether the prayer for punitive damages should be stricken because the EEOC did not comply with the gatekeeping mechanism outlined in Idaho Code § 6-1604(2)—the motion lacks merit. Starting with first principles, the EEOC is in federal court asserting a federal claim. Which of course means that federal law governs the substance and procedure of its claim. ... For all these reasons, the Court holds, in the alternative, that the motion to strike lacks merit.