Minn.Stat. § 549.20

Section 549.20 does not permit punitive damages for breach of contract unless the willful and malicious conduct constitutes an independent tort.

Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc. · filed 1983-07-01

Punitive damages in this case were assessed under Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1982). ... Unless the willful and malicious conduct constitutes an independent tort, Minnesota law does not permit recovery of punitive damages.

Section 549.20 does not permit punitive damages for a breach of contract unless the breach constitutes or is accompanied by an independent tort.

Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. · filed 1984-06-05

When a plaintiff seeks to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract he is limited to damages flowing only from such breach except in exceptional cases where the defendant’s breach of contract constitutes or is accompanied by an independent tort. ... Even though the punitive damage statute was enacted in 1978, three years after the Wild decision, we note that the statute did not change the law on this point.

Section 549.20 does not allow punitive damages for breach of contract unless the breach constitutes or is accompanied by an independent willful tort.

Hay v. Dahle · filed 1986-05-13

In general, punitive damages under Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1984) are not recoverable for breach of contract. ... Punitive damages may be recovered, however, if the breach of contract constitutes or is accompanied by an independent willful tort.

Section 549.20 does not provide punitive damages for a breach of contract when recovery is limited to damages flowing from the breach.

University of Minnesota v. Goodkind · filed 1987-03-25

Similarly, we find no basis for punitive damages under Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1982). A plaintiff seeking to recover damages for breach of contract is limited to damages flowing from defendant’s breach.

Section 549.20 allows punitive damages for deliberate disregard of others’ rights or safety, but a breach of contract does not support punitive damages without an independent tort.

In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation · filed 2002-09-24

Minnesota law allows punitive damages when a party acts with “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (2000). Punitive damages are not permitted in breach-of-contract cases absent an independent tort, however, even when the breach is malicious.

Section 549.20 allows an employer to impliedly ratify or approve an employee’s illegal acts by failing to discharge or reprimand the employee.

Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. · filed 1990-01-23(2)

Kinney claims the evidence does not support the necessary finding that Kinney or its managers ratified or approved Thor-son’s actions. Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 2 (1986). Kinney contends that it cannot ratify or approve the acts of an agent by implication. This is not the law in Minnesota. An employer may impliedly ratify or approve the acts of an employee by failing to discharge or even to reprimand an agent for illegal activity.

Section 549.20, subdivision 2(c), permits punitive damages against an employer for conduct by a managerial employee acting within the scope of employment.

Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes · filed 1991-07-23(2)(c)

By statute, punitive damages can properly be awarded against an employer if the employee worked in a managerial capacity and acted in the scope of employment. See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 2(c) (1990). Here, Davidson was a TKDA manager.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages against an employer for an agent’s conduct only if the agent had authority to set policy and acted within the scope of employment, or a managerial agent knowingly ratified the conduct.

Baufield v. Safelite Glass Corp. · filed 1993-03-15subd. 2(c), (d)

Accordingly, Ricely has failed the test provided in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 2(c). ... Accordingly, the Court holds as a matter of law that Baufield has failed to satisfy the test in Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 2(d).

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 supplies the direct liability standard for punitive damages when an employer’s own pattern or practice of discrimination is at issue.

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. · filed 1997-12-05subd. 1

We find the Special Master erred as a matter of law by examining the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims under the vicarious liability standard in § 549.20, subd. 2. Given the posture in which the case was presented to the Special Master, we hold the appropriate legal standard for the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims is the direct liability standard of § 549.20, subd. 1.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 supplies the direct liability standard for punitive damages based on an employer's own pattern or practice of discrimination.

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 852, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,174, 48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 454 · filed 1997-12-05subd. 1

We find the Special Master erred as a matter of law by examining the plaintiffs' punitive damages claims under the vicarious liability standard in § 549.20, subd. 2. Given the posture in which the case was presented to the Special Master, we hold the appropriate legal standard for the plaintiffs' punitive damages claims is the direct liability standard of § 549.20, subd. 1.

Section 549.20 permits an employer’s punitive liability based on an agent’s conduct only when the agent has managerial authority to make policy and planning decisions and acts within the scope of that employment.

Doe YZ v. Shattuck-St. Mary's School · filed 2016-10-05subd. 2(3)

As Judge Rau correctly concluded, Krenzke, Prokopy, and Hedderick are not managerial employees vested with authority to make policy and planning level decisions for Shattuck. While their knowledge is imputable to Shattuck for negligence purposes, it is not imputable to Shattuck for assessing punitive liability.

Section 549.20, subdivision 2(2), permits punitive damages against a principal for an agent’s acts when the agent was unfit and the principal deliberately disregarded a high probability that the agent was unfit.

Soto v. Swift Transportation Services, LLC · filed 2018-05-14subd. 2(2)

Nor have they demonstrated an entitlement to allege a punitive damages claim based on Mr. Shealey’s actions as Swift’s agent because they have failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that Swift deliberately disregarded a high probability that Mr. Shealey was unfit to be a commercial motor vehicle driver. See Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 2(2) (permitting punitive damages against a master or principal because of the acts of an agent where “the agent was unfit and the principal deliberately disregarded a high probability that the agent was unfit”).

A claim for punitive damages against a principal under subdivision 2(a)(1) requires facts showing that the principal authorized both the agent’s act and the manner in which the agent carried it out.

Williams v. Rodenburg, LLP · filed 2018-11-062(a)(1)

But these conclusory statements provide insufficient factual enhancement to draw a reasonable inference that PRA authorized the manner in which Rodenburg carried out the garnishment.

Section 549.20, subdivision 2(2), permits punitive damages against a principal for an agent’s act when the agent was unfit and the principal deliberately disregarded a high probability of that unfitness.

Famuyide · filed 2026-03-18subd. 2(2)

For the reasons stated forth in Sections III.A and III.B, the proposed amended complaint alleges sufficient facts that Chipotle deliberately disregarded a high probability that Bailey was unfit.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for property damage claims based on negligence or res ipsa loquitur, but not for strict liability property damage claims.

Williams Pipe Line v. City of Mounds View, Minn. · filed 1989-01-06subd. 1

Minnesota’s punitive damages statute provides for punitive damages “upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of defendant show a willful indifference to the rights or safety of others.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20 subd. 1 (1986). ... A review of Minnesota law shows that punitive damages may be available for Mounds View’s property damage claims based on negligence and res ipsa loquitur but they are precluded for any strict liability claim.

Punitive damages may not be awarded to parents solely for a tort committed against their child.

FATHER a v. Moran · filed 1991-05-07

Thus, consistent with the majority of other jurisdictions and policy expressed in Minnesota case law, we conclude that parents may not recover punitive damages based on injury to their child.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages against religious organizations; it contains no exemption for them.

Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. · filed 1992-03-24

If the legislature intended to exempt religious organizations from Minn. Stat. § 549.20 (1986), it could have specifically done so, as it did with municipalities in Minn.Stat. § 466.04, subd. 1(b) (1990). ... Thus, we decline to create an exemption to the punitive damages statute for religious organizations.

Subdivision 3 requires punitive damages to be measured by factors bearing on their purpose, including the defendant’s ability to pay.

Rosenbloom v. Flygare · filed 1993-06-04(3)

Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1992) not only provides for the allowance of punitive damages in certain cases, it also mandates at subdivision 3 that any award of punitive damages is to be measured by “those factors which justly bear upon the purpose of punitive damages, * * *.” ... Given the nature of punitive damages and the purpose for which they are assessed, the defendant’s ability to pay is a factor worthy of consideration in the exercise of our supervision over such awards even if the defendant is ultimately to be indemnified by another.

Section 549.20 requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for punitive damages and provides for their consideration in a separate proceeding after compensatory damages are determined.

Krutchen v. Zayo Bandwidth Northeast, LLC · filed 2008-12-05

Further, “[pjunitive 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.” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a). The statute further provides that a trier of fact must determine whether compensatory damages are warranted and then consider whether punitive damages should be awarded in a separate proceeding. Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 4. ... Further, the Court strikes without prejudice his claim for punitive damages; Krutchen may reassert his right to claim such damages at a later date.

Section 549.20’s general punitive damages requirements do not apply to exemplary damages for trade secret misappropriation under section 325C.03(b).

Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc. · filed 1994-08-23

Thus, the exemplary damages provision that applies only to causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets prevails over the general provisions of Minn.Stat. §§ 549.191-.20.

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 permits punitive damages for deliberate disregard of property rights even without personal injury.

Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. · filed 1996-07-30subd. 1

In addition to authorizing punitive damages in civil actions, the statute specifically permits punitive damages for "deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others." Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Violations of rights do not necessarily involve personal injuries. Conversion, for instance, generally violates property rights without personal harm to the owner. By including disregard of rights as well as disregard of safety, the statute permits punitive damages for both property damage and personal injury.

Section 549.20 permits punitive damages for intentional damage to property even when the only damage is to property, subject to its requirements.

Jensen v. Walsh · filed 2001-03-22subd. 1

Thus, we hold that a plaintiff may seek punitive damages in an action for intentional damage to property where the only damage is to property, subject to the limitations of section 549.20.

Section 549.20 does not create an independent claim for punitive damages.

United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC · filed 2010-05-11

A claim for punitive damages is not an independent claim. Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (2008).

Section 549.20 permits plaintiffs to seek punitive damages in certain circumstances but does not create a separate cause of action.

Green v. Carlson · filed 2019-10-22

This statute does not provide a cause of action, but rather is a procedural statute permitting plaintiffs to seek punitive damages in certain circumstances.

Section 549.20 does not apply when the events occurred before its effective date.

Wilson v. City of Eagan · filed 1980-09-12

The standard of review and the law to be applied is that developed in the prior decisions of this court and not that of Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1978), because the events in this case occurred before the effective date of the statute.

Section 549.20 does not permit punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor’s estate.

Thompson v. Estate of Petroff · filed 1982-05-21

Although the punitive damages statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1980), does not expressly prohibit assessing punitive damages against the estate of a deceased defendant, we conclude that such damages are not recoverable.

Section 549.20’s clear and convincing evidence standard applies to causes of action arising on or after April 15, 1978; later discovery of an earlier fraud does not make the section applicable.

ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme · filed 1988-12-01(1)

Although the fraud was discovered in 1980 after the enactment of section 549.20, the cause of action as found by the trial court arose in 1967 and, therefore, the language of the statute itself indicates that it is inapplicable.

The 1990 amendment to subdivision 1 requires deliberate disregard and applies only to causes of action arising on or after May 4, 1990.

Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 1992-12-08(1)

Section 549.20, subdivision 1 was amended in 1990 to require a defendant’s acts to show “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” This amendment, however, applies only to causes of action arising on or after May 4, 1990. 1990 Minn.Laws ch. 555, § 24. Therefore the heightened standard does not apply to this case.

Section 549.20 punitive damages cannot be recovered together with treble damages under section 561.04 for the same trespass.

Johnson v. Jensen · filed 1989-10-20

We are, however, of the opinion that plaintiffs may not recover both treble damages pursuant to section 561.04 and punitive damages pursuant to section 549.-20.