Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702

Section 60-3702(c) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to plead and prove willful, wanton, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.

Metal Trading Services of Colorado, Inc. v. Trans-World Services, Inc. · filed 1991-12-04(c)

Thus, to recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must plead and prove the conduct was willful, wanton, fraudulent, or malicious.

Section 60-3702(c) requires proof of willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice for punitive damages.

Peoples State Bank & Trust Co. v. Krug (In Re Krug) · filed 1995-11-21(c)

The Court finds that Krug’s request for punitive damages must be denied, in light of the Court’s failure to find that the conduct of PSB or its agents constituted fraud, malice, gross negligence or willful and wanton invasion of another’s rights.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of wanton, willful, fraudulent or malicious conduct before punitive damages may be awarded.

Patton v. TIC United Corp. · filed 1996-02-16(c)

A finding of wanton, willful, fraudulent or malicious conduct is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages under Kansas law and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Kan.Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(c). ... A reasonable jury could find that TIC’s apparent indifference to the safety of Wil-Rich cultivator operators was “wanton” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to support punitive damages.

L & M Enterprises, Inc. v. BEI Sensors & Systems Co. · filed 1999-03-30(c)

In Kansas, “to warrant an award of punitive damages, a party must prove to the trier of fact by clear and convincing evidence that the party against whom the damages are sought acted with willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.” Reeves v. Carlson, 266 Kan. 310, 969 P.2d 252, 255 (1998) (citing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(c)). Because the court has determined BEI justifiably canceled its contract with L & M and that L & M has failed to establish BEI acted maliciously in its contacts with third parties, there is no basis for L & M’s claim for punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Chrysler Realty Corp. · filed 1999-10-14(c)

The Kansas statute provides that to recover punitive damages, plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant acted with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice. K.S.A. § 60-3702(c). ... The Court finds that the evidence presents a question for the trier of fact to determine whether punitive damages should be allowed in this case. Whether defendants’ conduct was willful and wanton depends to some degree on the state of mind of the actors, and the stipulated record does not allow the Court to make a summary judgment determination on this issue.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to support punitive damages.

First Savings Bank v. Frey · filed 2001-07-06(c)

To warrant an award of punitive damages, a party must prove to the trier of fact by clear and convincing evidence that the party against whom the damages are sought acted with willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Stewart v. Mitchell Transport · filed 2002-12-23(c)

“In order to recover punitive damages, plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that defendant acted toward plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.” ... Because there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether Defendants’ conduct was wanton, the court denies summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

Liability for punitive damages requires proof of intent to do wrong or cause injury.

McCain Foods USA Inc. v. Shore (In Re Shore) · filed 2004-12-01(b)

In establishing liability for punitive damages, McCain had to establish intent to do wrong or cause injury.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to establish a punitive damages claim.

Acord v. Porter · filed 2020-09-25(c)

In addition, K.S.A. 60-3702(c) provides that in order to establish a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove his or her claim by "clear and convincing evidence . . . that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice." ... Further, even if Acord had come forward with an adequate record to allow for appellate review of the punitive damage issue, we find that he has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Porter or Dr. Resch acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Stavig v. Sumner-Cowley Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2024-07-11(c)

A plaintiff who seeks punitive damages must prove “by clear and convincing evidence … that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.”

Section 60-3702(c) allows punitive damages for wanton conduct without proof of a minimum drug level or that drug use caused the collision.

Adamson v. Bicknell · filed 2009-05-15(c)

Wanton conduct is not premised on the existence of a minimum level of intoxication or quantity of drugs in the system. In fact, a finding that the drugs ingested by Bicknell did or did not cause Bicknell to crash into Adamson’s vehicle is immaterial to our analysis of whether Bicknell engaged in wanton behavior.

Section 60-3702(c) applies in diversity cases, and a punitive damages claim may proceed when the evidence could support a finding of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.

Lyden v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. · filed 1995-11-22(c)

Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702(c) is substantive law, and therefore applicable in diversity cases. ... Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the court finds that the plaintiffs deposition testimony describes conduct on the part of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find willful, wanton, or malicious. ... In light of these allegations, the court finds that there exist material issues of fact as to whether punitive damages would be appropriate in this case, and therefore denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Count II of the plaintiffs complaint.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Powell v. Havner · filed 1993-03-19(c)

In order to recover punitive damages, plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that defendant acted toward plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice. Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702(c). ... In reviewing the evidence presented by plaintiff in this case, the court finds that there is insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s conduct was wanton.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Whittenburg v. L.J. Holding Co. · filed 1993-08-13(c)

Although the court has no obligation to do so, it has reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the parties in support of their summary judgment pleadings, and concludes that the evidence in support of plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages falls short of their burden to produce clear and convincing evidence as required by K.S.A. 60-3702(c).

Section 60-3702 requires clear and convincing proof of willful or wanton conduct to recover punitive damages.

Rios v. Bigler · filed 1994-03-11

At trial, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant acted toward her with willful or wanton conduct by clear and convincing evidence. K.S.A. 60-3702 (Supp. 1992). ... Thus, the court finds that plaintiff has not met her burden to show she is entitled to take her punitive damage claims to the jury, and defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on this issue is granted.

Section 60-3702(c) allows punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of trial shows willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice toward the plaintiff.

Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp. · filed 1994-05-10(c)

K.S.A. 60-3702(c) restricts punitive damages to cases in which it is proven, “by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.” (emphasis added). ... The court was positively convinced that no reasonable jury could find any clear and convincing evidence that Michelin had deliberately or recklessly failed to warn plaintiffs’ son or otherwise acted in a willful or wanton manner.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence for a punitive damages award, and that burden applies in federal court as substantive state law.

Scheufler v. General Host Corp. · filed 1995-05-16(c)

Second, there has been a material change in Kansas law regarding burden of proof. An award of punitive damages must now be based on clear and convincing evidence. K.S.A § 60-3702(c). As burden of proof is a substantive matter, the state law applies.

Section 60-3702 requires clear and convincing proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc. · filed 1996-02-07(e)

Section 60-3702(e) of the Kansas statutes provides that “[i]n any civil action where claims for exemplary or punitive damages are included, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that ... the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.” ... In light of these allegations, the court finds that there exist material issues of fact as to whether punitive damages would be appropriate in this case, and therefore denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Count II of the plaintiffs complaint.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice to recover punitive damages.

Messer v. Amway Corp. · filed 2002-06-13(c)

In order to recover punitive damages, plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amway acted with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing proof of wanton conduct to support punitive damages.

PS Ex Rel. Nelson v. the Farm, Inc. · filed 2009-09-08(c)

Moreover, to support an award of punitive damages, plaintiffs must prove wanton conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.

Adamson v. Bicknell · filed 2012-10-26(c)

This standard is set by K.S.A. 60-3702(c), which provides that a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted toward tire plaintiff with “ ‘willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.’ ”

Section 60-3702(c) allows punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty. · filed 2018-03-28(c)

Punitive damages may be awarded if a plaintiff shows by clear and convincing evidence that "the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice." ... Because the court has already found a question for the jury exists as to whether defendants acted with "reckless disregard" on the constitutional claims, the court finds it appropriate for a jury to determine whether plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(c) requires a plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of trial that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.

Logan v. Corning, Inc. · filed 1994-11-29(c)

K.S.A. 60-3702(c) provides: “In any civil action where claims for exemplary or punitive damages are included, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence in the initial phase of the trial, that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.” Logan does not contend that Coming’s behavior constituted willful conduct, fraud or malice. The issue, is, therefore, whether Logan can show that Corning acted toward her with wanton conduct.

Section 60-3702 permits a court to consider the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and litigation costs when setting punitive damages.

Ruiz v. Quiktrip Corp. · filed 1993-07-15(b)

On the other hand, the plaintiffs attorney’s fees and litigation costs are a factor that has long been recognized in assessing the amount of punitive damages. The court believes this to still be a relevant factor after the enactment of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702.

Section 60-3702(b) lists seven nonexclusive factors for the court to consider when setting punitive damages.

Patton v. TIC United Corp. · filed 1994-07-25(b)

The court -will analyze the seven factors listed in K.S.A. 60-3702(b). As the plaintiffs note (and the defendant does not dispute) those seven factors, listed below, are also not exclusive.

Section 60-3702(b) permits the court to consider its listed factors when setting punitive damages, but the factors are not exclusive.

Citizens State Bank v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. · filed 1994-12-30(b)

The court has carefully considered the seven factors listed in K.S.A. 60-3702(b) and discusses them below. However, it does bear noting that the statutory language which sets out those factors is precatory and hot mandatory in nature. The Kansas Legislature has suggested that certain criteria be reviewed by indicating that the court at the punitive damage proceeding “may” consider those enumerated factors. This court and others have determined that these considerations are not exclusive.

Section 60-3702(b) lists seven factors a court may consider when assessing punitive damages, but the factors are neither mandatory nor exclusive.

Wardrip v. Hart · filed 1996-12-11(b)

K.S.A. 60-3702(b) provides seven enumerated factors which the court “may” consider in assessing punitive damages. These considerations are not mandatory or exclusive.

Section 60-3702(b) requires the court to consider the listed factors when setting punitive damages, but permits other relevant considerations.

Ramirez v. IBP, Inc. · filed 1996-12-11(b)

The factors listed in K.S.A. 60-3702 are not the exclusive considerations in assessing punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(b) provides nonexclusive factors for courts to consider when setting punitive damages.

Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc. · filed 1999-12-17(b)

Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-3702(b). This list is not exclusive. ... After considering all the factors and relevant evidence, the court finds that $200,000 is a reasonable award of punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(b) allows a court to consider seven factors when setting punitive damages; express findings on each factor are unnecessary when the record shows the court considered them all.

Mynatt v. Collis · filed 2002-11-01(b)

We find that even though the district court did not make an explicit statement of the facts relevant in its consideration of K.S.A. 60-3702(b)(6) and (7), the record reflects that the court considered all the statutory factors when making its determination regarding punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(b) permits the court to consider seven factors when setting the amount of punitive damages.

Sheldon v. Vermonty · filed 2003-01-10(b)

K.S.A. § 60-3702(b) provides that the court may consider seven factors when determining the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.

Section 60-3702(b) permits courts to consider seven statutory factors when assessing punitive damages.

Presnell v. Central Kansas Conservancy, Inc. · filed 2025-09-26(b)

It carefully considered the statutory factors under K.S.A. 60-3702(b) and determined that these damages were appropriate to both punish Presnell's past actions and to deter future obstructive or vexatious conduct.

Section 60-3702(b) permits a punitive damages award equal to attorney fees when the court's findings support the amount.

Lamar v. Lamar · filed 2019-02-15(b)

While there does not seem to be precedence for such an award, it is not prohibited. Kansas courts permit the punitive damages award so long as the findings on the record support the amount.

Section 60-3702 provides a two-step process for punitive damages: the original trial determines entitlement, and a later proceeding determines the amount.

Deere & Co. v. Zahm · filed 1993-10-14

The court notes that it deems the Kansas punitive damages scheme to be substantive in nature and, thus, it follows the two step process set out in K.S.A. § 60-3702 determining entitlement to punitive damages in the original trial with a subsequent proceeding determining the amount.

Section 60-3702(d) permits punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s conduct only if a person expressly empowered to control that conduct authorized or ratified it.

H. Wayne Palmer & Associates v. Heldor Industries, Inc. · filed 1993-11-15(d)

The court finds that the only way to give effect to the “expressly empowered” language contained in section 60-3702(d) is to conclude that the questioned conduct must be authorized or ratified by a person who has been given express powers by the corporation, either through express provisions of the charter, or bylaws, or resolutions or acts of the board of directors, or through that person’s contract of employment, to authorize or ratify the conduct in question.

Section 60-3702(d)(1) allows punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s conduct only when someone expressly empowered to act for the employer authorized or ratified that conduct.

Lindsey v. Miami County National Bank · filed 1999-07-09(d)(1)

The statute’s requirement that “the questioned conduct [be] authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on behalf of the principal or employer,” K.S.A. 60-3702(d)(1), would require that someone like Gihlcrist or Blakeman knew of Beyer’s ... improper actions and condoned them. It is clear that neither person authorized or ratified Beyers improper actions.

Section 60-3702(d)(1) permits punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s acts only if a person expressly empowered by the employer authorized or ratified the conduct.

Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc. · filed 2002-01-11(d)(1)

That said, Kansas law does not permit assessment of punitive damages against a principal or employer for the acts of an agent or employee unless the questioned conduct was “authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on behalf of the principal or employer.”

Section 60-3702(d)(1) allows punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s conduct only when a person expressly empowered to act for the employer authorized or ratified the conduct that caused the injury.

Brent v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2022-02-11(d)(1)

Second, Brent has not offered evidence that Bradstreet or McPherson or anyone else she identified was “expressly empowered” under the meaning of Section 60-3702(d) to authorize or ratify the conduct that allegedly led to her fall.

An employer can be assessed punitive damages for an employee’s conduct only if the conduct qualifies for punitive damages and the employer authorized or ratified it.

Yaple v. Jakel Trucking LLC · filed 2022-12-13(d)(1)

Jakel Trucking cannot be liable for punitive damages except to the extent Erion, its employee, engaged in willful and wanton conduct and Jakel Trucking authorized or ratified that conduct.

Section 60-3702(d)(1) allows punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s conduct when a person empowered to act for the employer authorized or ratified that conduct, including through implied approval.

Post v. Hanchett · filed 2024-01-04(d)(1)

A reasonable factfinder could find that Mr. Nichols impliedly authorized Mr. Kaser to inspect tire inflation by thumping them because Mr. Nichols supplied Mr. Kaser a thumper and trained his drivers to use the thumping or kicking method.

An employer may be liable for punitive damages for an employee’s malicious conduct if it ratifies that conduct, expressly or through conduct showing approval.

Werdann v. Mel Hambelton Ford, Inc. · filed 2003-11-26(d)(1)

We also agree the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Mel Hambelton ratified the conduct of its employee. Ratification, under the punitive damages statute, may be either express or implied and may be accomplished before, during, or after the employees’ questioned conduct. It may be based on an express ratification or based on a course of conduct indicating the approval, sanctioning, or confirmation of the questioned conduct.

Section 60-3702(d)(1) requires an employer to authorize or ratify an employee’s tortious conduct before punitive damages may be assessed against the employer; authorization or ratification requires affirmative action.

Morgan v. Wesley Medical Center, LLC · filed 2020-09-14(d)(1)

Authorization and ratification in this context, however, require affirmative action.

Subsection (b)'s factors guide the court in determining the amount of punitive damages after a default judgment.

Beck v. Atlantic Contracting Co. · filed 1994-06-30(b)

The court does believe the factors listed in K.S.A. 60-3702(b) are relevant to this court's ability to make a reasonable determination as to the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded in this default judgment situation.

Section 60-3702(e) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to support punitive damages.

Hill v. IBP, Inc. · filed 1995-03-23(e)

Defendant asserts that plaintiff has not presented clear and convincing evidence that defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful or wanton conduct, fraud or malice. See K.S.A. § 60-3702(e). The court believes that material issues of fact exist on this issue, and denies summary judgment on defendant’s, motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(b) directs courts assessing punitive damages to consider seven factors, including the likelihood of harm, the defendant’s conduct and financial condition, and the deterrent effect of other awards.

Oliphant v. Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. · filed 1995-05-10(b)

K.S.A 60-3702(b) enumerates seven factors which the court should consider in assessing the amount of punitive damages: (1) likelihood at the time of the alleged misconduct that serious harm would arise from the defendant’s misconduct; (2) degree of defendant’s awareness of that likelihood; (3) profitability of defendant’s conduct; (4) duration of the misconduct and any intentional concealment of it; (5) attitude of the defendant upon discovery of the misconduct; (6) financial condition of the defendant; and (7) the total deterrent effect of other damages and punishment imposed upon defendant as a result of the misconduct.

Section 60-3702(a) gives the trier of fact discretion to deny punitive damages even when it finds conduct that could support an award.

Trendel v. Rogers · filed 1998-03-13(a)

The plain language of 60-3702 reveals the legislature intended for the trier of fact to have discretion in determining whether punitive damages should be allowed.

Section 60-3702(e) allows the court to consider income earned in the year of the misconduct when applying the punitive damages cap.

Safety Technologies, L.C. v. Biotronix 2000, Inc. · filed 2001-03-01(e)

There is no logical reason why the legislature would have wanted to exclude consideration of the year in which the misconduct occurred. If the legislature had intended to exclude consideration of the year in which the misconduct occurred, the statute would likely read "for any of the five years before the year in which the act for which such damages are awarded.” The defendant's annual gross profit for 1997 was $123,626. An award of $50,000 is less than the defendant's gross profit for 1997 and, therefore, is not limited by section 60-3702(e).

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing proof of willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages; a claim survives summary judgment if a reasonable juror could find that standard met.

Kernke v. Menninger Clinic, Inc. · filed 2001-11-14(c)

A punitive damages claim will survive a motion for summary judgment if a reasonable juror could find that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that the defendant ácted in a wanton matter. ... In this case, the court finds that plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment with respect to their punitive damages claims.

Section 60-3702(e) permits a higher punitive damages cap when the defendant’s profit from the course of conduct causing the plaintiff’s injuries exceeds the otherwise applicable limit.

Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · filed 2002-06-21(e)

Based on the evidence presented at trial and at the punitive damages hearing, the court concludes that the profitability of Reynolds’ course of conduct far exceeded $5 million dollars. In fact, the court concludes that the profitability far exceeded $15 million dollars. Thus, the statutory limitation on punitive damages exceeds $15 million dollars and is not implicated by the court’s award of punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(a) directs the court to determine the amount of punitive damages, but that procedure does not bind a federal court sitting in diversity.

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2009-09-09(a)

The court maintains its previous holding that § 3702(a)’s two-step determination is state procedure, such that it should not have been followed at trial.

Section 60-3702(c) lists fraud, malicious conduct, willful conduct, and wanton conduct as grounds for punitive damages.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Narula · filed 2011-07-29(c)

Nevertheless, Bank of America ignores “fraud” as a basis for punitive damages, which is listed along with malicious, willful, or wanton action under K.S.A. 60-3702(c).

Section 60-3702(a) assigns the amount of punitive damages to a state court after a jury allows them, but a federal jury determines the amount under Rule 38.

UPS v. Jones · filed 2011-10-24(a)

Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(a), if a civil jury determines that punitive damages “shall be allowed,” the state court must conduct a “separate proceeding . . . to determine the amount of . . . damages to be awarded.” ... Rule 38, by preserving “the right to a trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment,” answers the question in dispute and requires that the jury determine the amount of the punitive damage award in federal court, despite conflicting state law.

Section 60-3702(a) assigns the amount of punitive damages to the court after a jury allows them, but Rule 38 requires a federal jury to determine the amount.

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2012-03-05(a)

Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(a), if a civil jury determines that punitive damages “shall be allowed,” the state court must conduct a “separate proceeding . . . to determine the amount of . . . damages to be awarded.” ... Rule 38, by preserving “the right to a trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment,” answers the question in dispute and requires that the jury determine the amount of the punitive damage award in federal court, despite conflicting state law.

Section 60-3702 limits punitive damages to the wrongdoer and does not expressly allow a claim for them to survive the wrongdoer's death.

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust · filed 2016-11-18

These provisions express a legislative intent in Kansas that punitive damages should be assessed only against the party who committed the wrong. ... Rather, it is based on the fact that the recovery of punitive damages was not a right at common law in Kansas and, although we now have a statutory scheme that allows for the recovery of punitive damages, there is nothing in that statutory scheme or in our survival statute, K.S.A. 60-1801, that expressly allows a claim for punitive damages to survive the death of the wrongdoer.

Section 60-3702 lists factors that may be relevant to determining the amount of punitive damages.

In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation · filed 2017-04-05

The applicable Kansas statute does not include any such consideration in its list of factors that may be relevant to a determination of the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.

Section 60-3702(c)’s clear and convincing evidence standard applies at trial; a plaintiff seeking to plead punitive damages need only allege facts that make the claim plausible.

Riley v. PK Management, LLC · filed 2019-07-09(c)

The law in this district is to the contrary. When a plaintiff seeks to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages, ... “Plaintiff is not required to meet the ‘clear and convincing’ standard for punitive damages, nor submit concrete evidence to support her claim, at this phase of the case. Rather, she must simply state enough facts to make her punitive damages claim plausible on its face.”

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful or wanton conduct, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages.

Williams v. Pinson · filed 2023-02-10(c)

To be entitled to punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove their claim by "clear and convincing evidence . . . that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice." K.S.A. 60-3702(c). ... But as the district court found, the issues that arose between Kellogg and Williams during the litigation do not show that Kellogg acted with willful or wanton conduct, or with fraud or malice, for the purposes of seeking punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice for punitive damages.

Roadbuilders Machinery Supply Co., Inc. v. Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC · filed 2024-03-14(c)

An entitlement to punitive damages requires clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with “willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.” K.S.A. § 60-3702(c).

Section 60-3702(e)(1) generally limits punitive damages to the defendant’s annual gross income.

Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers · filed 2005-09-07(e)(1)

Under Kansas law, punitive damages generally are limited to the "annual gross income earned by the defendant." Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702(e)(l).

Section 60-3702(e)(1) generally limits punitive damages to the defendant's highest annual income in the preceding five years, but permits an award of up to half the defendant's net worth if that limit is inadequate.

The Still Corporation v. Still · filed 2017-11-17(e)(1)

As a baseline, an award typically should not exceed an amount equaling the defendant's highest annual income in the last five years. But if the district court finds that amount would be inadequate, it may make an award equivalent to as much as half the defendant's net worth. K.S.A. 60-3702(e)(1). The district court relied on that alternative limitation to impose the $85,000 award on Still. ... We see no legal error.

The punitive damages cap applies separately to each separately filed action consolidated for trial, even when the awards arise from the same misconduct.

Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. · filed 2006-06-16(e)

For Woody’s and Decor, two plaintiffs who filed two separate actions that were consolidated for trial, the statutory cap applies separately in each case. Thus, the $5,250,000 award is within the $10 million limit.

Section 60-3702(e)–(f)'s general punitive damages cap yields to KUTSA's specific cap for trade secret misappropriation claims.

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. · filed 2009-05-07(e)-(f)

Furthermore, the cap under the KUTSA is specific to claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and controls over the general punitive damages cap found in K.S.A. § 60-3702(e) — (f).

Section 60-3702 caps punitive damages in trade secret cases at $5 million unless the court finds that the defendant’s misconduct yields or is expected to yield more than that amount in profit.

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. · filed 2011-07-29(e), (f)

Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-3702(e) and 3322(b) can be read together and harmonized such that in a trade secret misappropriation action, punitive damages are limited to twice the amount of compensatory damages up to $5 million. ... We note that to apply subsection (f), the court must find that the profitability of Ratier’s misconduct—not profitability from the entire project—exceeds or is expected to exceed $5 million.

Subsection (e)(2) limits punitive damages for large corporations to $5 million.

Horinek · filed 2026-05-26(e)(2)

In addition, Kansas law limits punitive damages for large corporations like Spirit to $5 million. K.S.A. § 60-3702(e)(2). ... Therefore, Spirit, which is headquartered in Kansas, was on notice that it could be punished up to $5 million for willfully violating the law with regard to retaliatory discharge.

Section 60-3702(b)(7) makes the deterrent effect of prior punitive damage awards a mitigating factor when assessing punitive damages.

Scheufler v. General Host Corp. · filed 1995-10-24(b)(7)

The defendant’s due process rights are adequately protected by K.S.A. § 60-3702(b)(7), which makes the deterrent effect of prior punitive damage awards a mitigating factor in assessing punitive damages.

Section 60-3702(b) requires the trial court to make findings sufficient for meaningful appellate review when setting the amount of punitive damages.

Reeves v. Carlson · filed 1998-12-11(b)

When determining the amount of punitive damages to be awarded under K.S.A. 60-3702, it is incumbent on the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact to afford meaningful appellate review.

Section 60-3702(b) does not require explicit findings on every punitive damages factor if the record shows the district court considered the factors.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 2007-04-06(b)

Even though the district court did not make an explicit statement as to all the statutory factors, the record reflects that the district court was aware of the statutory factors and discussed the factors in general before determining the amount of punitive damages to award. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of punitive damages it awarded to each of the three children.

In a Kansas diversity case, a plaintiff who invokes the Seventh Amendment may have the jury determine the amount of punitive damages despite § 60-3702(a)'s procedure assigning that determination to the court.

Oleson v. KMart Corp. · filed 1999-03-31(a)

Whether the procedure for determining punitive damages set forth in K.S.A. 60-3702(a) applies in Kansas diversity cases is unsettled. ... Until convinced or directed otherwise, this court believes that Busby was correctly decided. The plaintiffs invocation of his Seventh Amendment right to have the jury determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be awarded is granted.

Section 60-3702(a)'s requirement that the court determine the amount of punitive damages is procedural and does not override the right to a jury determination in federal court.

Vance Ex Rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc. · filed 2004-04-08(a)

If the provision § 60-3702(a) requiring concurrent determination of liability for punitive damages is procedural and does not trump federal procedure, Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b)(allowing bifurcation of all claims and issues), then the provision of § 60-3702(a) requiring court determination of punitive damages is also procedural and does not trump federal procedure, especially where the federal rule is based on the Seventh Amendment.

Section 60-3702(a) provides for the jury to decide whether punitive damages are allowed and the judge to set the amount, but the Seventh Amendment requires a federal jury to decide the amount.

Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2010-02-11(a)

This Court has not previously been asked to consider, however, whether applying Section 60-3702(a)’s bifurcated process violates the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of trial by jury. Capital has expressly invoked the Seventh Amendment in this case; thus, the Court considers the question for the first time, and it concludes that the Seventh Amendment does require that the jury also be allowed to determine the amount of any punitive damages awarded.

Section 60-3702(a) gives the jury discretion to deny punitive damages even when it finds fraud.

Blizzard Energy v. Alexandrov · filed 2019-04-19(a)

When the verdict form is considered in the context of the jury instructions, the answers to questions A(1) and A(4) are not necessarily inconsistent because the finding of fraudulent conduct in question A(1) did not require the jury to award punitive damages in question A(4).

Section 60-3702(a)'s procedure for determining punitive damages does not control how federal courts award them.

Jain v. Kumar · filed 2022-03-18(a)

Ramirez and American Maplan thus provide little guidance for deferred discovery after the Tenth Circuit expressly recognized the Kansas statute does not control the procedure for awarding punitive damages in federal courts.

Section 60-3702(a)’s separate proceeding to determine the amount of punitive damages supports deferring discovery of a defendant’s finances until liability for punitive damages is found.

American Maplan Corp. v. Heilmayr · filed 2001-09-19(a)

While other judges in the district may permit pretrial discovery of such information, this court’s practice is to defer until after trial on liability the discovery of financial data relating to punitive damages when the issue of the amount of punitive damages is bifurcated from the issue of liability for such damages, as where the claim is made under the law of Kansas. ... For this reason, the court grants defendant’s motion with respect to the discovery of his tax returns, W-2 and 1099 forms, and other documents reflecting compensation earned. Discovery of such information will become necessary only in the event a jury finds defendant liable to plaintiff for punitive damages.

Section 60-3702 permits punitive damages in appropriate fraudulent transfer actions.

McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Shore (In Re Shore) · filed 2004-01-29

Kansas law allows the imposition of punitive damages in this situation under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3702 and Kansas case law makes clear that fraudulent conveyance or transfer actions can, in appropriate circumstances, support the award of such damages.

Section 60-3702 permits a trust and its beneficiaries to seek punitive damages from a deceased trustee's estate under its procedures and requirements.

Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust · filed 2018-09-21

We hold that a trust and its beneficiaries with a cause of action for a trustee's breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duties may seek punitive damages from the estate of a deceased trustee under the procedures and requirements of K.S.A. 60-3702 and 60-3703.

Section 60-3702(e)'s $5 million punitive damages cap does not apply to a claim governed by Missouri law.

Raymond Brovont, M.D. v. KS-I Medical Services, P.A. and MO-I Medical Services, LLC · filed 2020-10-13(e)

The question before the court is whether the jury's award of $10 million in punitive damages against MO-I was properly capped by the trial court at $5 million by applying KAN. STAT. ANN.§ 60-3702(e). ... The trial court erred in applying Kansas law to cap Dr. Brovont's punitive damages claim against MO-I.

Section 60-3702 requires a verdict for actual damages before punitive damages may be recovered.

Wendt v. University of Kansas Medical Center · filed 2002-12-06

Because the jury rejected all of Wendt’s claims, he was not entitled to an award of actual damages. A verdict for actual damages is essential to the recovery of punitive damages.