Minn.Stat. § 549.20

Section 549.20 does not permit punitive damages for merely negligent conduct, and the award is within the trial court’s discretion.

Terfehr v. Kleinfehn · filed 1984-07-17subd. 1

The awarding of punitive damages is within the discretion of the trial court. The court found that Kleinfehn “knew or should have known that such action would, or at least could, cause damage” to Ter-fehrs’ crops. This is the language of negligence. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an award for punitive damages to the Terfehrs.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages at trial, but a claimant opposing summary judgment need only show facts creating a genuine issue for trial.

Lundgren v. Eustermann · filed 1984-10-23

While it is true that the punitive damages statute requires clear and convincing evidence, that is the plaintiffs burden at trial. Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1982). However, to defeat a summary judgment motion, Lund-gren need only show the existence of facts creating a genuine issue for trial.

Section 549.20 does not eliminate the requirement that a plaintiff be entitled to actual or compensatory damages before punitive damages may be awarded.

Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewell · filed 1984-10-23subd. 1

At the conclusion of trial, counsel for Stern and Gordon requested an instruction on the availability of an award of punitive damages under Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1982). The trial court ruled that it would not give such an instruction until the jury found Stern and Gordon had suffered actual damages. ... Prior to the enactment of Section 549.20, the court held in numerous cases that punitive damages may be awarded only where plaintiff is entitled to actual or compensatory damages. ... Stern and Gordon argue that the statute makes no mention of a finding of actual or compensatory damages as a prerequisite to an award of statutory punitive damages. This argument ignores the Minnesota Supreme Court’s interpretation of this issue. ... The trial court did not err in refusing to give the punitive damage instruction.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, requires clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages, and the jury must be instructed on that burden.

Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. · filed 1987-03-06subd. 1

We hold that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury regarding the "clear and convincing" evidence standard for punitive damages imposed by Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1.

Section 549.20 does not allow punitive damages when there is no liability for actual damages.

O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm · filed 1987-06-09subd. 1

The district court properly concluded that there was no basis for punitive damages when there is no liability for actual damages.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, permits punitive damages only upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded a high probability of injury to others’ rights or safety.

In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig. · filed 2019-01-14subd. 1

Punitive damages are allowed "only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others," which requires that the defendant "has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others" and "deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard" or "with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others." Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1 (2018). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellants had not presented the prima facie case requisite for a punitive-damages claim.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety to award punitive damages.

Sadeghi-A v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC · filed 2022-03-14subd. 1(a)-(b)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of willful disregard necessary for punitive damages.

Section 549.20 limits punitive damages rather than authorizing them.

Nachtsheim v. Wartnick · filed 1987-09-08

Also, § 549.20 does not authorize punitive damages, it limits them.

Section 549.20 governs punitive damages for a Human Rights Act violation, and the offender’s behavior and resources bear on whether an award is reasonable.

Department of Human Rights Ex Rel. Cooper v. Spiten · filed 1988-06-07

Relator also argues that the administrative judge failed to consider all of the statutory factors in its $2600 punitive damage award to Larson. The applicable statute states that punitive damages shall be awarded pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1986). The trial court noted that relator has adequate resources to pay. The punitive damage award was reasonable in light of Spiten’s behavior and resources.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 allows punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded others' rights or safety.

Matter v. Nelson · filed 1991-12-03(1)

Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1 (1990), provides: Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others. ... Upon review of the record, this court finds nothing to support respondents' claims that the Nelsons showed willful indifference or deliberate disregard to the rights or safety of others. Therefore, there is no basis to find the trial court erred in denying punitive damages.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety before punitive damages may be awarded.

Beniek v. Textron, Inc. · filed 1992-01-07(1)

Because there was no evidence that demonstrated Homelite acted with a malicious disregard for the rights and safety of others, the trial court properly granted Homelite’s motion for a directed verdict.

Under the former willful indifference standard of § 549.20, punitive damages did not require proof that the defendant actually knew the law it violated.

Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank · filed 1991-06-07

This court has never concluded that a defendant must have actual knowledge of a law in order to be willfully indifferent to rights of others and thereby liable for punitive damages. We are not persuaded that we should do so now.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, requires evidence of egregious conduct beyond a driver's blood alcohol level to submit punitive damages to a jury.

Nhep v. Roisen · filed 1989-10-10subd. 1

Without evidence of egregious facts, a driver's level of blood alcohol concentration alone is insufficient to justify submitting the issue of punitive damages to a jury.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim to go to the jury when the evidence shows the defendant knew its conduct posed a high probability of injury and disregarded that injury.

GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1991-10-08(1)(b)

In short, the evidence showed that Starkey knew circulation of the flyer created a high probability of injury to Danavox’s business, yet it acted with disregard for Danavox’s probable injury. See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(b). Thus the trial court properly submitted the issue of punitive damages to the jury.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim based on deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety without an allegation of actual physical injury.

Sadeghi-A v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC · filed 2021-03-08subd. 1(b)

In view of these allegations, the Court finds the absence of any allegation of actual physical injury to Sadeghi-A or another person does not render his punitive damages claim futile.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, permits punitive damages for defamation when the defendant acted with actual malice.

Erickson v. Sawyer · filed 2023-01-12subdiv. 1

The actual-malice standard—that a person publishes a defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” Nelson Auto Ctr., 951 F.3d at 956—mirrors the standard for awarding punitive damages under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 549.20 subdiv. 1.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others to support a punitive damages claim.

Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. · filed 1992-08-21subd. 1(a)

Section 549.20, Subd. 1(a) provides that in order to add a claim for punitive damages, the claiming party must provide "clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.”

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others to recover punitive damages.

M.H. v. Caritas Family Services · filed 1992-08-21subd. 1(a)

Similarly, plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that there is “clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others” required to recover punitive damages.

Section 549.20 allows punitive damages only for harm resulting from deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety; a civil penalty for an unintentional open meeting violation is not punitive damages.

Kroschel v. City of Afton · filed 1994-03-08subd. 1(a)

We conclude, however, for several reasons, that civil penalties do not constitute punitive damages. First, punitive damages are allowed only where the harm complained of is the result of “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a) (1990). But a civil penalty is called for under the open meeting law even when, as here, the violation was unintentional.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety to award punitive damages.

Lundman v. McKown · filed 1995-04-04subd. 1(a)

Here, the punitive damages award must be reversed because it is unchallenged that all defendants, including the church, acted in good faith. And there is no "clear and convincing evidence" that the church acted in "deliberate disregard" of Ian's rights.

Section 549.20 requires an intentional act with a high probability of injury, rather than a substantial certainty of injury, for punitive damages.

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Printy (In Re Printy) · filed 1995-10-131(b)

Because the collateral estoppel effect of arbitration awards in the context of section 523(a) proceedings is disputed, see Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 223, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 1243-44, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985); P & S X-Ray Co., Inc. v. Dawes (In re Dawes), No. 94 B 17143, 1995 WL 461880 at 4-5 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.1995); Norrell Health Care, Inc. v. Clayton (In re Clayton), 168 B.R. 700 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1994), because the Debtor is correct in noting that the Minnesota statute merely requires an intentional act that has a high probability, rather than a substantial certainty, of producing injury, and because the evidentiary materials in this case are sufficient for this Court to determine the Debtor’s liability under section 523(a)(6), the use of collateral estoppel is unwarranted.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety.

Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. · filed 2003-06-16subd. 1(a)-(b)(2)

Under the MHRA, punitive damages must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Minn.Stat. 549.20 (2002). ... Because MMA does not establish how the award of $6,000 is so excessive as to be unreasonable, and given the reasoning of the district court, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the award of punitive damages under the MHRA.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows deliberate disregard for another’s rights and the required statutory factors are applied.

Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly · filed 2010-01-12(1)(a)

Here, unlike in Bougie, the commission panel awarded punitive damages as a part of the special-verdict award in response to jury instructions that set forth the requisite statutory factors, finding that "by clear and convincing evidence," the MPD "acted with deliberate disregard for the rights of [Kelly]." We note that this finding is essentially a function of the commission's determination that the MPD wrongfully jailed Kelly based on his race. Furthermore, the presiding officer of the commission panel identified the required statutory analysis in her findings and memorandum of law. Because this explanation demonstrated application of section 549.20 and was supported by the commission's prior findings, we conclude the commission did not err in awarding the punitive damages.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety to award punitive damages.

Kapps v. Biosense Webster, Inc. · filed 2011-09-27subdiv. 1(a), (b)

No reasonable jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ascent acted with “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others” as Minn.Stat. § 549.20 requires for an award of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others to support punitive damages.

Target Corp. v. LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC · filed 2013-08-09subd. 1(a)

To meet the substantive requirements for punitive damages under Minnesota law, a party must show — by clear and convincing evidence — that the defendant acted with “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a).

Section 549.20 supplies the substantive punitive damages requirements for Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims, including clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety.

Ramirez v. AMPS, Staffing, Inc. · filed 2018-04-27subd. 1(a)-(b)

Because the MWA does not itself contain punitive damages requirements, the substantive requirements for punitive damages contained in Minn. Stat. § 549.20 apply.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety; negligence, even gross negligence, is insufficient.

Parada v. Anoka County · filed 2019-09-16subd. 1(a)

Punitive damages are permitted “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a). ... But negligence, even gross negligence, is not enough to rise to the level of deliberate disregard for the rights of another. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not presented prima facie evidence that Officer Oman acted with deliberate disregard of her rights when he arrested her.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages when a defendant knows of or intentionally disregards a high probability of injury and deliberately proceeds with disregard or indifference to that risk.

Russ v. Ecklund Logistics, Inc. · filed 2022-08-16

Under Minnesota law, punitive damages are available if the defendant “‘has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others’ and ‘deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of’ or ‘with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others.’” Kruszka v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 19 F. Supp. 3d 875, 898 (D. Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 549.20). ... Because there are disputed facts related to plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, the court denies summary judgment.

Subdivision 4’s requirement to try punitive damages separately does not apply in federal court because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 governs separate trials.

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · filed 2022-09-29(4)

According to BMO Harris, bifurcation is mandatory pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20, subdivision 4, which provides that “[i]n a civil action in which punitive damages are sought, the trial of fact shall, if requested by any of the parties, first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.” ... Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 addresses bifurcating issues and ordering separate trials, Minnesota’s bifurcation statute is inapplicable here.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others.

Salcedo v. Uecker · filed 2023-04-24

Such damages are allowed in civil actions, “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” See Olson v. Snap Prods., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1035, n.2 (D. Minn. 1998) (citing Minn. Stat. § 549.20); ... Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would plausibly show that any defendant’s conduct rises to this level. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion to amend.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages in a tort action when clear and convincing evidence establishes deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Burks v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2009-07-24

Minnesota law, however, permits an award of punitive damages in a tort action where “clear and convincing” evidence establishes that a defendant acted with “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20. Because a substantial remedy, punitive damages, is available under Minnesota law but not under Louisiana law, there is therefore a clear conflict between the states’ laws.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages in civil actions upon a showing that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Aguirre v. Easy Automation Inc · filed 2024-11-26

Here, Washington law permits punitive damages only when expressly permitted by statute and Minnesota law permits punitive damages in civil actions upon a showing a defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others.

LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. · filed 1994-09-06(1)(a)

A claim for punitive damages may be allowed, however, “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant showed deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a) (1992). Although the evidence supports the jury finding that appellants acted negligently, we conclude the evidence is not clear and convincing that appellants acted with deliberate disregard for LeDoux’s rights.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded another’s rights or safety to support punitive damages.

Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corporation · filed 1999-04-09(1)(a)

Therefore, despite the jury’s conclusion that Pall was liable under a less strict common law definition of malice, the district court did not err by finding a lack of “clear and convincing evidence” that Pall “deliberately disregarded” Porous’s right not to have its DBF23 filter unjustly maligned.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety to support punitive damages; defamation per se alone does not establish that disregard.

Longbehn v. Schoenrock · filed 2007-02-06subd. 1(a), (b)

While this court’s conclusion that respondent’s statement was defamatory per se results in general damages being presumed, it does not necessarily follow that every defamation per se claim also warrants punitive damages. The propriety of punitive damages must be determined on a case-by-case basis. To support an award of punitive damages, there must be clear and convincing evidence establishing that respondent acted in conscious or intentional disregard for the high probability that his statement would cause appellant harm. In this case, that evidence is lacking.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1(a), requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety; evidence suggesting only negligence does not suffice.

JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. · filed 2009-03-03(1)(a)

The district court determined that these allegations did not establish a prima facie case that Adam acted with a deliberate disregard of the rights of B.R.W. See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a). We agree. Appellant presented no evidence to the district court that Adam had any specific knowledge about C.R. that would create a high probability of injury to B.R.W. While the evidence presented by appellant may point towards negligence on Adam's part, it does not point to a "deliberate disregard" by Adam for the safety of B.R.W.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety; evidence suggesting negligence alone does not suffice.

J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District · filed 2009-03-03subd. 1(a)

“Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights, or safety of others.” ... While the evidence presented by appellant may point towards negligence on Adam’s part, it does not point to a “deliberate disregard” by Adam for the safety of B.R.W.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety; a good-faith mistake does not meet that standard.

Freeland v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. · filed 2011-06-08subd. 1(a)

Thus, Plaintiff has not provided clear and convincing evidence that Defendant FRS acted in deliberate disregard of Plaintiffs right to privacy; Defendant FRS proceeded, albeit erroneously, on a good-faith basis that the information on file was correct.

Section 549.20 requires knowledge or intentional disregard of facts making injury probable, followed by action despite that knowledge, to establish deliberate disregard.

Healey v. I-Flow, LLC · filed 2012-04-101(b)

Hence, for an award of punitive damages, the statute requires: (1) knowledge of or an intentional disregard of facts that make injury to the plaintiffs rights probable; and (2) action despite such knowledge.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety before punitive damages may be awarded.

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy · filed 2014-12-311(a)-(b)

In order to recover such damages, Plaintiff must establish “upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, Subd. l(a)(b); Minn.Stat. § 363A.29, Subd. 4 (stating that punitive damages under the MHRA “shall be awarded pursuant to section 549.20”). ... The Embassy’s decision to award Davidson a higher salary than Ewald does not rise to the level of deliberate disregard for Ewald’s rights warranting punitive damages. Accordingly, for many of the same reasons set forth in the Court’s denial of liquidated damages, the Court declines to award punitive damages.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded others’ rights or safety.

Armstrong v. Hasbargen Logging, Inc., State of Minnesota · filed 2015-07-06subd. 1(a), (b)

A plaintiff can claim punitive damages “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” ... Armstrong does not present a prima facie case that Hasbargen or Cook showed a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1(b), allows punitive damages when a defendant acts in deliberate disregard of another’s rights.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 1994-11-17subd. 1(b)

This makes out the requisite prima facie showing that Baldanza was aware that his actions were likely to violate American’s right to employee confidentiality, and that he proceeded to seek the spill tables in deliberate disregard of that right.

Section 549.20 treats a person as acting with deliberate disregard for another’s safety when the person knows facts creating a high probability of injury and proceeds in disregard of them.

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. M.B. · filed 1997-05-20subd. 1(b)

Under Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1, acting with deliberate disregard for someone’s safety means knowing facts that create a probability of injury and then acting in disregard of those facts; according to Diocese of Wino-na, expecting injury to someone means acting with the knowledge that it is probable that injury will occur as a result of the act.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others; evidence a jury could believe may satisfy that standard.

ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Swenson · filed 2011-03-21subd. 1(a)-(b)

Minnesota’s punitive damages statute requires “clear and convincing evidence” that ADT’s acts show a “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a). ... Counterclaimants’ evidence, if believed by a jury, amply meets this standard.

Section 549.20 defines deliberate disregard as knowing or intentionally disregarding facts that create a high probability of injury and deliberately proceeding despite that risk.

Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association · filed 2015-08-03(1)(b)

“Deliberate disregard” means the defendant “has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others” and “deliberately proceeds to act” either “in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability of injury” or “with indifference to the high probability of injury.” ... Having reviewed the evidence relied on by the Browns in support of their pretrial motion, we conclude that the district court properly found that the punitive-damages standard was not satisfied.

Section 549.20 requires deliberate disregard of another’s rights or safety for punitive damages, and a proposed pleading must plausibly allege that conduct by each defendant.

Barry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-01-29subd. 1(a)–(b)

Although the Federal Rules establish the process for determining whether to grant a motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages, Minn. Stat. § 549.20 establishes the substantive legal standard for liability for punitive damages under Minnesota law. ... These allegations, assumed true as they must be, are sufficient to raise a plausible claim that Defendant ARS acted in deliberate disregard of Plaintiff’s rights when its agent repossessed Plaintiff’s vehicle. ... Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded facts showing that CARS was sufficiently involved in the alleged wrongful repossession to support a plausible claim that CARS itself deliberately disregarded Plaintiff’s rights.

Punitive damages require deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety, including knowledge of facts creating a high probability of injury.

In Re McNeilus Manufacturing Explosion Coordinated Litigation · filed 2019-06-06subd. 1(b)

Second, the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would not survive a motion to dismiss because it does not show that Swagelok and San Diego Valve were aware of a high probability that their products could cause injuries. Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(b).

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Tholen v. Assist America, Inc. · filed 2019-06-06subd. 1

Punitive damages are available under Minnesota Statute § 549.20 “upon clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others. ... Tholen has cleared this hurdle and met the standard required in order to move forward with his case.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for deliberate disregard of another’s rights, and allegations of knowingly false loan statements and credit reporting plausibly support such a claim.

Coleman v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-04-21subd. 1(a)-(b)

Under Minnesota law, punitive damages may be awarded “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn. Stat. § 549.20 subd. 1(a). ... The Court finds these proposed allegations create a plausible inference that Defendants acted with deliberate disregard for Coleman’s rights under the MOSLA.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim based on knowingly false representations that create a high probability of harm to another’s rights.

Rise Above Fitness, Inc. v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these allegations set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchases.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim for knowingly false representations that create a high probability of injury to another’s rights.

Johnson v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these allegations set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchase.

Section 549.20 requires deliberate disregard of a high probability of injury for punitive damages; negligence, even gross negligence, is insufficient.

JTKB, LLC v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Under the criteria set forth under § 549.20, “[a] defendant operates with ‘deliberate disregard’ by acting with intent or indifference to threaten the rights or safety of others.” ... However, the mere showing of negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for knowing false representations that create a high probability of injury to another’s rights.

ILKB of CNY, LLC v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchases.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for deliberate disregard of others’ rights or safety, including knowingly making false representations that create a high probability of harm.

Hasko v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these allegations set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchase.

Subdivision 1(b) allows punitive damages for knowing false representations that create a high probability of harm to another’s rights.

Van Saders v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchase.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for deliberate disregard of others’ rights or safety, including knowingly false statements that create a high probability of harm.

Hamilton v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Under the criteria set forth under § 549.20, “[a] defendant operates with ‘deliberate disregard’ by acting with intent or indifference to threaten the rights or safety of others.”

Section 549.20 requires deliberate disregard of a high probability of harm; negligence, even gross negligence, does not support punitive damages.

Mount Holly Kickboxing, LLC v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

However, the mere showing of negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 requires a punitive damages claim to allege that the defendant knew or intentionally disregarded facts creating a high probability of harm to another’s rights or safety.

The Orange Rabbit, Inc. v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Put another way, the Court looks to whether the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint plausibly allege that Defendants knew of facts, or intentionally disregarded facts, that created a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm the rights or safety of Plaintiffs.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim based on knowingly false representations that create a high probability of injury.

Li v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiff, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiff, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiff with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiff’s rights with respect to his franchise purchases.

Subdivision 1(b) requires facts showing that the defendant knew or intentionally disregarded a high probability of injury; negligence, even gross negligence, is insufficient.

Dolphin Kickboxing Co. v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

However, the mere showing of negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 permits a jury to decide punitive damages when the evidence creates a triable issue of deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety.

Tholen v. Assist America, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24subd. 1(a)-(b)

If a jury finds Assist America liable for defamation, the Court finds sufficient evidence to also create a triable issue on whether Assist America acted with deliberate disregard for the Tholens’ rights when it published Statements wholly or in part contradicted by the record that implied Dr. Tholen’s leg was amputated because he acted in haste and ignored sound medical advice.

Section 549.20 requires facts showing deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety to support punitive damages.

Peterson-Rojas v. Dakota County · filed 2022-02-04subd. 1(a)-(b)

Here, while Plaintiff has outlined at length that the Galloway Defendants have made false statements against her, and has produced evidence that she has been harmed by their conduct (as well as the County’s actions and/or inactions), Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficiently demonstrating that the Galloway Defendants knew that their allegedly defamatory statements were false or acted with deliberate disregard as to whether the statements were false, something that is required under Minnesota law. See Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a)-(b). Her proposed amendment is thus futile.

Section 549.20 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to allege that the defendant knew of a high probability that its conduct would injure the plaintiff.

Kutz v. NGI Capital, Inc. · filed 2023-08-15subd. 1

Moreover, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants were aware of a high probability that their conduct would cause injury to plaintiff.

Section 549.20 requires more than negligence or gross negligence to support punitive damages; the plaintiff must plausibly allege deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety.

Hart v. County of Dakota · filed 2023-09-11subd. 1

More than negligence or even gross negligence is required to sufficiently allege a claim for punitive damages. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk of injury to EKAH.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1(b), allows a punitive damages request when the pleaded facts plausibly show that the defendant deliberately disregarded a high probability of injury to another’s rights.

Perez v. Axis Residential, LLC · filed 2025-04-11subd. 1(b)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint plausibly alleges facts demonstrating that Axis acted with deliberate disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages claim when the alleged facts plausibly support clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety.

Russ v. Ecklund Logistics, Inc. · filed 2022-03-23subd. 1

In sum, because Plaintiff has alleged facts that, if unrebutted, amount to clear and convincing evidence that Ecklund Logistics acted with willful indifference to a known or ascertainable risk of probable harm, Plaintiff’s TAC meets the standard of Minn. Stat. § 549.20.

Section 549.20 requires deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety; knowingly false representations that create a high probability of injury can support punitive damages.

Golden Polar Bear, LLC v. Franchoice, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06subd. 1(b)

Assuming as true the allegations that Defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, and the allegations that Defendants knew these representations were false when they made them to Plaintiffs, when construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, these allegations set forth a plausible claim that Defendants consciously or with indifference provided Plaintiffs with inaccurate information about ILKB in order to entice them into investing in an ILKB franchise thereby creating a high probability that Defendants’ actions would harm Plaintiffs’ rights with respect to their franchise purchases.

Punitive damages may proceed when allegations that repossession employees knowingly towed an occupied vehicle make a prima facie showing of deliberate disregard for the occupant’s safety.

Hansen v. Santander Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-08-28subd. 1

Taken as true for the purposes of this motion, Plaintiff’s allegations concerning11th Hour’s actions suggest deliberate disregard for Plaintiff’s safety, and thus make out a prima facie case for punitive damages.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1, allows a punitive damages claim to survive summary judgment when the plaintiffs present sufficient evidence to support it.

Werlein v. United States · filed 1990-09-04subd. 1

This is particularly true where, as here, a case involves years of conduct by dozens of individuals resulting in substantial harm to the public interest. After a careful review of the record, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment in favor of Honeywell or Federal-Hoffman.

Subdivision 1 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights to recover punitive damages; sufficient evidence of willful indifference allows the claim to survive summary judgment.

Commercial Property Investments, Inc. v. Quality Inns International, Inc. · filed 1991-07-10subd. 1

To recover punitive damages, CPI must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Quality, via its representative, Francois, acted with a deliberate disregard for the rights of others. ... Based on these arguments, CPI has presented enough evidence regarding the willful indifference of Francois for its claim for punitive damages to survive summary judgment.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded another’s rights or safety before punitive damages may be awarded.

Morrow v. Air Methods, Inc. · filed 1995-05-11subd. 1(a)-(b)

Thus, in appropriate cases, a liability determination on the underlying whistleblower claim may suffice to meet the clear and convincing standard of § 549.20. The case before the court, however, is not such a case. Although Morrow states a viable claim of retaliatory discharge, the evidence taken in the light most favorable to Morrow fails to meet the quality and quantity of evidence required by Minnesota law to support an award of punitive damages. Accordingly, a reasonable jury could not find by clear and convincing evidence that Air Methods deliberately disregarded Morrow’s right to be free from illegal retaliation.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others before punitive damages may be awarded.

Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2012-11-30subd. 1(a)

The evidence is neither clear nor convincing, as a matter of law, that OMJP deliberately disregarded the safety of the users of Levaquin. The district court erred in denying JMOL for OMJP on punitive damages.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety; a wrongful-death verdict under a lower burden of proof does not itself establish entitlement to punitive damages.

Thompson v. Hughart · filed 2003-06-24subd. 1

But to support an award of punitive damages there must be clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others. ... Because of the difference between the burdens of proof, the jury could find that Hughart acted wrongfully and intentionally and also find that there was inadequate proof that he acted with deliberate disregard for Demo’s rights or safety.

Section 549.20 requires clear-and-convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety; a punitive damages claim may proceed when the evidence could support that finding.

Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2014-05-19

A plaintiff must prove its claim by clear-and-convincing evidence. Minn.Stat. § 549.20. ... Therefore, having considered the pleadings and record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that Plaintiffs have proved their case for punitive damages. Accordingly; the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages.

Section 549.20 requires a prima facie showing of deliberate disregard before a plaintiff may add a punitive damages claim; conduct undertaken on a lawyer’s advice after three orders denying relief did not meet that standard.

Hogenson v. Hogenson · filed 2014-08-11(b)

The district court noted that Michael’s conversion and trespassing took place after receiving the advice of his lawyer and, although the appeal was still pending, after three district court orders denied Arthur’s motions to vacate the Fallon judgment. We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that Arthur’s allegations did not establish a prima facie case for punitive damages.

Section 549.20 allows a plaintiff to add a punitive damages claim when the pleaded facts plausibly show deliberate disregard for another’s rights or safety; obtaining damages ultimately requires clear and convincing evidence.

Shank v. Carleton College · filed 2018-10-15subd. 1(a)

Because Shank demonstrated good cause for failing to timely file her motion, because any prejudice to Carleton can be addressed, if necessary, through limited additional discovery, and because Shank plausibly alleges Carleton deliberately disregarded her rights or safety under Minnesota Statutes § 549.20, Shank’s motion is granted.

Section 549.20 allows punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for another’s rights; allegations plausibly showing that disregard support leave to plead them.

Ionlake, LLC v. Girard · filed 2021-02-18subd. 1

The question here is whether Derrick Girard has pleaded enough facts to plausibly support a claim for punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 549.20. ... These allegations, assumed true as they must be, are sufficient to raise a plausible claim that Wade acted in deliberate disregard of Derrick’s rights under Minnesota law.

Subdivision 3 guides review of punitive damages for excessiveness by considering factors such as malice, the interest invaded, and the amount needed to deter future misconduct.

Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry & Neurology, Ltd. · filed 1983-02-03subd. 3

The general rule is that "[w]hether punitive * * * damages are appropriate * * * is within the discretion of the jury. [Citation omitted] The weight and force to be given evidence relating to punitive damages is exclusively a jury question" and "[i]n determining whether punitive damages are unreasonably excessive, the court should consider, among other factors, the degree of malice, intent or willful disregard, the type of interest invaded, the amount needed to truly deter such conduct in the future * *." Wilson v. City of Eagan, 297 N.W.2d 146, 150-51 (Minn.1980); see Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1980). In this regard, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reduce the award of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 does not extend punitive damages to newly recognized causes of action, including defamation based on compelled self-publication.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · filed 1986-07-03

The intent was essentially to codify the existing case law on punitive damages. Thus, section 549.20 should not be read to extend the availability of punitive damages to newly recognized causes of actions, such as an action based upon compelled self-publication.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, supplies the factors for deciding whether a punitive damages award is unreasonable.

Gits v. Norwest Bank Minneapolis · filed 1986-07-22subd. 3

In determining whether an award of punitive damages is unreasonable, we must look to the factors found in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1984). ... In view of the jury’s broad discretion, we cannot say this award was unreasonable.

Section 549.20(3) measures punitive damages by factors tied to their punitive purpose; an award for fraud cannot punish the defendant for harm from a separate antitrust violation.

Stanley McDonald Norman R. Hagfors, and Clayton Jensen v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 1984-02-28(3)

This is a correct statement of Minnesota law with respect to punitive damages. ... In the present case, it is highly relevant that the malicious or oppressive conduct must have been related to the fraud, not the suppression.

Section 549.20 measures punitive damages by their purpose of punishment and deterrence; adequate compensation is not a valid reason to reduce an award.

Sieren v. American Family Financial Services of Wisconsin, Inc. · filed 1984-10-16subd. 3

The trial court’s reasoning in this instance appears to be based upon considerations of compensation, rather than deterrence. This construction of the purpose behind a punitive damages award is not in accordance with the statute and caselaw cited above.

In assessing punitive damages, a court considers the defendant’s financial condition and whether the award exceeds what is needed to punish and deter.

Carl A. Bredberg and Diane Bredberg v. Dean Long, Nelda Long, and Realife, Inc., D/B/A Realife Ranch · filed 1985-12-09subd. 3

However, no evidence was presented as to the financial status of Dean and Nelda Long as individuals; the only assets which could be attributed to the Longs are those held by Realife, which the Bredbergs maintained was controlled by the Longs and operated for their financial benefit. ... Therefore, we conclude that the $750,000 punitive-damages award against Realife was justified, but that the additional punitive damages of $100,000 assessed against Dean Long and $750,000 assessed against Nelda Long must be set aside.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, does not require a separate jury interrogatory for each punitive damages factor when the jury is instructed on those factors.

Rediske v. Minnesota Valley Breeder's Ass'n · filed 1985-12-11(3)

The trial court, in instructing the jury, read 549.20, subd. 3, giving the factors to the jury for consideration. A separate interrogatory for each factor is not necessary.

Subdivision 3 lists factors for measuring punitive damages, including the defendant's awareness of its conduct and financial condition.

Frankson v. Design Space International · filed 1986-02-19subd. 3

Minnesota statutes list several factors that measure punitive damage awards. See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1984). ... DSI is a profitable corporation owned by Gelco, an extremely large and profitable corporation. DSI's awareness of the excessiveness of its defamatory statement may also have influenced the jury. ... Moreover, DSI's wealth shows that, unless the punitive damages are high, they will not serve their deterrent purpose. The jury's award of punitive damages cannot be disturbed.

A defendant’s ability to pay is a factor in assessing punitive damages, and a court may reduce an award based on that factor.

Johnson v. Ramsey County · filed 1988-06-07(3)

Ability to pay is one of the factors the jury shall consider in assessing punitive damages under Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1986): ... We believe the trial court was acting well within its discretion by scrutinizing the award and ordering a remittitur of the damages based on ability to pay.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, lists nine factors a jury should consider when setting the amount of punitive damages.

Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co. · filed 1989-02-16subd. 3

Second, the punitive damage statute is not standardless. The statute lists nine separate factors which a jury should consider when deciding what amount of punitive damages to award.

Section 549.20 permits a punitive damages award based on a defendant’s public role and efforts to fabricate testimony and conceal discrimination.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Moorhead State University · filed 1990-05-08(3)

The AU found that punitive damages were appropriate because Moorhead is a state institution “which should conduct its business in a manner which is above reproach.” The AU pointed to the fact that the attitude and conduct of students are shaped by the attitudes and conduct of Moorhead’s personnel. The AU found that Moorhead had encouraged the students to fabricate testimony, as well as cover up the discrimination. These findings are sufficient to support the award of punitive damages.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, calls for the court to consider relevant factors when setting a punitive damages award.

Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav. Bank, FSB · filed 1990-12-06(3)

In view of the state district court’s findings and an analysis of the relevant factors outlined in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, Subd. 3, this court concludes that $25,000.00 in punitive damages shall be assessed against defendant Don-ley.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, requires courts to consider factors bearing on the purpose of punitive damages when assessing whether an award is excessive.

Estate of Hartz v. Nelson · filed 1989-04-04subd. 3

To determine whether an award is unreasonable, a reviewing court must examine the factors set forth in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3. ... Based on the factors enumerated in the statute, we hold that the $700,000 amount assessed against appellant is unreasonable and excessive.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, does not make a nonparticipating, nonculpable partner’s finances relevant to the amount of a punitive damages award based solely on vicarious liability, so those finances are not discoverable before judgment.

Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen · filed 1990-05-11(3)

However, they contend, and we agree, that even if they may be vicariously liable for all or a portion of a punitive award, it does not follow that the financial condition of the individual nonparticipating partners is relevant to the jury’s computation of the amount of the punitive damage award under Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1988) (the statute enumerating factors relative to the establishment of the amount of a punitive damage award).

Section 549.20 permits evidence of a defendant’s conduct after the plaintiff’s injury when assessing punitive damages.

Hoppe v. G.D. Searle & Co. · filed 1991-11-19subd. 3

Plaintiff next requests that post-injury conduct by Searle be admitted under the Minnesota Punitive Damages Statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1990 Pocket Part). ... Plaintiffs request to introduce post-injury evidence is granted.

Subdivision 3 requires punitive damages to be measured using factors that include other punishment likely to be imposed on the defendant.

Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 1991-06-04(3)

Applying the factors listed in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3, we find support for punitive damages: ... (8) The total effect of other penalties was not taken into account. ... Accordingly, we reduce the jury's award of punitive damages from $500,000 to $100,000.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3, provides factors for reviewing punitive damages awards, including other punishment the defendant is likely to face.

Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp. · filed 1993-04-20(3)

While punitive damages were properly awarded, this court’s close scrutiny of the award and application of the factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 show the purpose of punitive damages would be best served by reducing the award by one-half.

Section 549.20 requires the district court to review a punitive damages award and make specific findings on the statutory factors before entering judgment.

Hooser v. Anderson · filed 2015-05-04(5)

The district court is required to review any punitive-damages award in light of those factors and “make specific findings with respect to them.”

Section 549.20, subdivision 3 requires findings addressing its statutory factors to support an award of punitive damages.

Bougie v. Sibley Manor, Inc. · filed 1993-08-03subd. 3

In the present case, the district court did not make findings addressing the factors included in section 549.20, subdivision 3. Accordingly, the award of punitive damages is reversed and remanded for findings on the statutory factors.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3 permits a jury to consider profits from a single product when measuring punitive damages because its list of factors is not exclusive.

Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2011-08-26subd. 3

Minnesota’s punitive damages statute allows a jury to consider a list of factors that is not exclusive. ... Ortho-McNeil asserts that the statute allows the jury to consider the net worth of a defendant but not the profit from a single product. The Court finds no support for such a proposition from the inclusive nature of the statutory language.

Section 549.20 treats a defendant’s financial condition as a factor in measuring punitive damages, not an essential element of entitlement to them.

Nugent v. Kerr · filed 1996-04-16subd. 3

We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in determining that evidence of Kerr’s financial condition was an essential element of proof required by Minn.Stat. § 549.20.

Section 549.20, subdivision 3 requires the district court to consider the listed factors when reviewing a punitive damages award; findings supported by the record can sustain the award.

Hooser v. Anderson · filed 2016-04-25(3)

The district court considered each required statutory factor. Its specific findings are supported by the record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving a punitive-damages award on respondent Heisinger’s battery claim.

Section 549.20, subdivision 4 bars consideration of a defendant’s financial condition when deciding compensatory damages, but permits that evidence when relevant to another issue.

Steady State Imaging, LLC v. General Electric Company · filed 2021-02-23subd. 4

To be sure, Minnesota law disallows consideration of a defendant’s financial condition when deciding compensatory damages. See Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 4. ... The Court further finds that size and wealth evidence is relevant with respect to establishing whether GE had the financial resources to commercialize SWIFT, which is what Steady State argues it intends to show. Accordingly, the Court will deny this Motion.

A defendant’s financial condition is relevant to punitive damages, and a parent company’s financial condition may be relevant if it sufficiently controls the defendant subsidiary.

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · filed 2022-10-09subdiv. 3

It is undisputed that the financial condition of BMO Harris is relevant to the issue of punitive damages. See Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subdiv. 3; GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Lab’ys, Inc., 476 N.W.2d 172, 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). ... The financial condition of a parent company may be relevant to the issue of punitive damages if the parent entity exercised sufficient control over the subsidiary entity. ... Accordingly, the Court denies BMO Harris’s motion to exclude evidence and argument pertaining to the financial condition of BMO Harris’s parent company, Bank of Montreal.

Subdivision 3 allows the jury to consider the defendant’s profit and financial condition when setting punitive damages.

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · filed 2023-06-23(3)

Further, the Court instructed the jury regarding the standards for imposing punitive damages on a principal for its agent’s actions and on the factors “which justly bear upon the purpose of punitive damages” under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3. ... The jury was entitled to consider both BMO Harris’s alleged profit and its financial condition when fashioning the jury’s punitive-damages award, and a reasonable jury could have determined that an award of nearly $80 million was appropriate in light of the evidence presented on the relevant factors.

Section 549.20 does not extend punitive damages to contract actions; the existing prohibition remains in force.

Minnesota-Iowa Television Co. v. Watonwan T v. Improvement Ass'n · filed 1980-05-30(1)

The fact that subdivision 3 recites the standards for the award of punitive damages set out in Minnesota case law further supports the inference that section 549.20 leaves intact the case law prohibition against punitive damages in contract actions.