Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220

Section 27-1-220(3)'s 3% net worth limit applies only if the defendant proves an accurate calculation of net worth.

Blue Ridge Homes, Inc. v. Thein · filed 2008-07-29(3)

We determine that § 27-1-220(3), MCA, prohibits punitive damage awards in excess of 3% of a defendant’s net worth only if the defendant first meets his burden of demonstrating an accurate calculation of his net worth.

Section 27-1-220(3) requires the court to apply the punitive damages limit after the jury’s verdict; the court may consider updated audited net worth information submitted after that verdict.

Harrell v. Farmers Educational Cooperative Union · filed 2013-12-10(3)

But it is the court, not the jury, that applies the statutory limit to a punitive damages verdict under § 27-1-220(3), MCA. ... Therefore, after the jury returned its punitive damages verdict and after Harrell voiced objection to the 2008-2009 financial statement, the court should have accepted MFU’s submission of its current audited financial information and applied the statute’s three percent limit to the jury’s award.

The 3% net worth limit on punitive damages does not apply when the relevant events occurred before its October 1, 2003 effective date.

Murphy Homes, Inc. v. Muller · filed 2007-06-12(3)

Consequently, we hold that the statutory limitation in § 27-1-220(3), MCA, does not apply to this case.

Section 27-1-220(3) limits punitive damages to 3% of a defendant’s net worth only if the defendant provides an accurate calculation of that net worth.

Carvalho v. Thein · filed 2008-07-29(3)

We determine that § 27-1-220(3), MCA, prohibits punitive damage awards in excess of 3% of a defendant’s net worth only if the defendant first meets his burden of demonstrating an accurate calculation of his net worth.

Section 27-1-220(3) caps punitive damages at the lesser of $10 million or 3% of the defendant’s net worth, but a defendant who fails to produce accurate net-worth evidence cannot invoke that statutory protection.

Adams v. Roberts · filed 2021-05-18(3)

If he fails to do so, the wrongdoer cannot “avail himself of the protection provided by § 27-1-220(3).”

Section 27-1-220(3) caps punitive damages at the lesser of $10 million or 3% of the defendant’s net worth, and a defendant who provides no reliable net-worth evidence waives application of the cap.

Adams v. Roberts · filed 2021-08-11(3)

Under Montana law, “[a]n award for punitive damages may not exceed $10 million or 3% of a defendant’s net worth, whichever is less.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220(3). ... To be sure, as Adams notes, it is the Court, not the jury, that applies the statutory limit to a punitive damage verdict. ... But Harrell does not stand for the proposition that a court can apply the limit in an evidentiary void. ... Thus, because Adams has offered no reliable evidence of his net worth in this case—before or after trial—he waives any claim that the statutory limit should be applied. Accordingly, the Court denies Rule 59(e) relief on this basis.

Section 27-1-220(3)'s punitive damages cap applies jointly to multiple defendants.

Dalbotten v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2023-01-20(3)

Montana’s punitive damages cap will apply and will be divided jointly between the Defendants. See Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220(3); Hull v. Ability Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173487 at *7, 17-18, 24 (D. Mont. 2012).

The punitive damages cap does not apply when the cause of action accrued before the cap took effect on October 1, 2003.

Seltzer v. Morton · filed 2007-03-12(3)

Accordingly, just as this Court held in Dvorak that the 1977 statute prohibiting punitive damages against government entities was not applicable to a cause of action that arose in 1974, we also hold that § 27-1-220(3), MCA, which went into effect on October 1, 2003, is not applicable to this case because Seltzer’s cause of action accrued before that date.

Section 27-1-220(3) caps punitive damages at the lesser of $10 million or three percent of the defendant's net worth.

v. Smith-Cote (In re Cote) · filed 2019-01-15(3)

In Montana, punitive damages awards are also subject to statutory limitations: such awards "may not exceed $10 million or [three percent] of a defendant's net worth, whichever is less." Section 27-1-220(3), MCA. ... By either measure-Montana statute or under a due process analysis-the punitive damage award was not excessive.

Section 27-1-220(1) requires a valid compensatory damages award before punitive damages may be awarded.

Folsom V.Whitefish Police MPEA · filed 2017-08-22(1)

Absent a valid compensatory damages award, punitive damages were unavailable to Folsom as a matter of law pursuant to § 27-1-220(1), MCA.

Punitive damages under § 27-1-220(1) require a valid compensatory damages award on a predicate claim; nominal damages alone do not suffice.

Folsom v. Montana Public Employees' Ass'n · filed 2017-08-22(1)

Absent a valid compensatory damages award, punitive damages were unavailable to Folsom as a matter of law pursuant to § 27-1-220(1), MCA.

Section 27-1-220(1) requires a proven underlying claim for compensatory damages before punitive damages may be awarded.

Rideg v. Berleth · filed 2020-08-25(1)

Here, Tenants have neither proven their asserted predicate claim for compensatory damages under § 70-24-312(3), MCA, as required by § 27-1-220(1), MCA; nor proven actual fraud or malice as required by § 27-1-221(1) and (4), MCA. The District Court thus did not erroneously deny them compensatory or punitive damages on their underlying statutory claim for landlord harassment.

Punitive damages are a component of recovery on an underlying civil claim, so a separate punitive damages count fails when the underlying claims fail.

Pfau v. Mortenson · filed 2012-04-30(1)

"[P]unitive damages are merely a component of recovery of the underlying” civil claims. Finstad v. W.R. Grace & Co., 301 Mont. 240, 8 P.3d 778, 782 (2000); see also Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-220(1).

Section 27-1-220 requires a showing of actual damages before punitive damages are available.

Stipe v. First Interstate Bank - Polson · filed 2008-07-08

Punitive damages, however, are unavailable without a showing of actual damages. Section 27-1-220, MCA; Paulson v. Kustom Enterprises, Inc., 157 Mont. 188, 201-02, 483 P.2d 708, 715-16 (1971).

Section 27-1-220(1) permits punitive damages only in addition to compensatory damages.

Brodowy v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-01(1)

Under Montana law, compensatory damages are a prerequisite to punitive damages. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220(1) (punitive damages may only be awarded “in addition to compensatory damages”); Stipe v. First Interstate Bank-Polson, 188 P.3d 1063, 1068 (Mont. 2008) (“Actual damages are a predicate for punitive damages.”). ... Because the Brodowys’ claims for compensatory damages all fail as a matter of law for the reasons discussed above, they cannot maintain a claim for punitive damages.

Section 27-1-220(1) permits punitive damages only as an addition to compensatory damages, so a plaintiff without compensatory damages cannot maintain a punitive-damages claim.

Mark R. Kiesel Living Trust v. Hyde · filed 2024-08-30(1)

Under Montana law, compensatory damages are a prerequisite to punitive damages. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-220(1) (punitive damages may only be awarded “in addition to compensatory damages”); Stipe v. First Interstate Bank-Polson, 188 P.3d 1063, 1068 (Mont. 2008) (“Actual damages are a predicate for punitive damages, and an individual with no real or actual damages has no right of action for punitive damages.”). Because Kiesel’s claims for compensatory damages all fail as a matter of law for the reasons discussed above, he cannot maintain a claim for punitive damages.

Section 27-1-220(2)(a) bars recovery of punitive damages in contract and breach-of-contract actions, but it does not apply to a contractual penalty clause because that clause is not punitive damages.

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc. · filed 2025-01-29(2)(a)

Here, the Court finds that § 27-1-220(2)(a) is inapplicable to the contract clause. Under §27-1-220(2)(a), “unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, punitive damages may not be recovered in any action arising from: (i) contract; or (ii) breach of contract.” At issue in this motion is a penalty clause in the contract. Punitive damages are awarded by courts to punish a defendant for egregious conduct, while penalty clauses are contractual provisions that specify a predetermined sum to be paid by the breaching party.

Section 27-1-220 bars exemplary damages for breach of contract, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unless a statute expressly allows them.

Haines Pipeline Construction, Inc. v. Montana Power Co. · filed 1991-12-16

Section 27-1-220, MCA, clearly says exemplary damages are not allowed for a breach of contract unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. Story further clarifies that the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing constitutes breach of contract and not a tort.

Punitive damages are unavailable in a commercial lease contract action unless a statute expressly authorizes them.

Sage v. Rogers · filed 1993-03-09(2)(a)(i)

This case is a contract case and the applicable statutes do not expressly provide for punitive damages in a contract situation dealing with a commercial lease. We, therefore, conclude that the District Court was only permitted to award treble rent as damages and not the separate amount of $95.85.

Section 27-1-220 bars punitive damages in contract actions unless a statute expressly allows them.

Grenfell v. Anderson · filed 2002-10-10(2)(a)

This case is a contract case and no applicable statute provides for punitive damages.

Section 27-1-220 prohibits punitive damages arising from breach of contract.

Weter v. Archambault · filed 2002-12-20

We recognize that § 27-1-220, MCA, prohibits punitive damages arising from breach of contract.

Section 27-1-220 generally bars punitive damages for breach of contract claims.

Textana, Inc. v. Klabzuba Oil & Gas · filed 2009-11-24

Section 27-1-220, MCA, generally precludes punitive damages recovery for breach of contract claims.

Section 27-1-220 generally bars punitive damages for breach of contract.

Textana v. Klabzuba · filed 2009-11-24

Section 27-1-220, MCA, generally precludes punitive damages recovery for breach of contract claims.

Section 27-1-220 permits punitive damages in a UTPA action arising from a breach of an insurance contract.

Estate of Gleason v. Central United Life Insurance · filed 2015-05-20(2)(b)

Section 27-l-220(2)(b), MCA, expressly states, “[s]ubsection (2)(a) does not prohibit recovery of punitive damages in... an action arising under 33-18-201,” the UTPA statute at issue. Section 27-1-220, therefore, does not foreclose the possibility of a recovery of punitive damages in a UTPA action premised on a breach of the insurance contract.

Section 27-1-220(2)(ii) bars punitive damages for claims arising from breach of contract, including fiduciary duty claims that depend on an operating agreement.

Doll v. Little Big Warm · filed 2024-08-20(2)(ii)

Section 27-1-220(2)(ii), MCA, provides that punitive damages may not be recovered in any action arising from breach of contract. LBWR’s counterclaims were, in essence, breach of contract claims, thus it was improper for the District Court to award such damages.

Section 27-1-220(1) permits a judge or jury to award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, but leaves the award to the trier of fact’s discretion.

Emmerson v. Walker · filed 2010-07-28(1)

Section 27-1-220(1), MCA, provides that “a judge or jury may *178award, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages for the sake of example and for the purpose of punishing a defendant.” ... Further, the statutes cited above make punitive damage awards discretionary, and it was within the purview of the District Court, as the trier of fact, to determine whether punitive damages *179were appropriate.

Section 27-1-220(3) caps punitive damages at the lesser of $10 million or 3% of the defendant’s net worth, but does not require a court to award the maximum.

Detienne ex rel. Vibeke Detienne Trust v. Bryan Sandrock, GG&me, LLC · filed 2018-11-13(3)

Section 27-1-220(3), MCA, provides the maximum amount of punitive damages that may be awarded, but it does not require the District Court to award that maximum amount.

Section 27-1-220 permits punitive damages in mass tort litigation even when a defendant may face multiple awards for the same conduct; whether to award them is decided case by case.

Campbell v. ACandS, Inc. · filed 1989-01-18

The issue sub judice is whether Montana law allows the assessment of punitive damages in mass tort litigation where the defendant may be liable for multiple awards of punitive damages for the same conduct. ... Having considered the statutory and decisional law of Montana which bears upon the query as framed, the court is compelled to conclude that the propriety of awarding punitive damages presents an issue to be determined by the trier of fact on a case by case basis. ... Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-220 (1987) provides that “a judge or jury may award, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages for the sake of example and for the purpose of punishing a defendant.”

Section 27-1-220(1) allows a judge or jury to award punitive damages to punish a defendant.

Tindall v. Konitz Contracting, Inc. · filed 1989-12-20(1)

Section 27-1-220(1), MCA, allows a judge or jury to award punitive damages for the purpose of punishing a defendant.

Section 27-1-220 allows a factfinder to award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages to punish a defendant and set an example.

Beaver v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation · filed 2003-10-14(1)

A factfinder “may award, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages for the sake of example and for the purpose of punishing a defendant.” Section 27-1-220, MCA. Further, § 27-1-221, MCA, provides that “reasonable punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant has been found guilty of actual fraud or actual malice.” Having reversed the District Court by concluding that Ness’s conduct constituted actual fraud under the statute, we remand for the factfinder to determine whether an award of punitive damages is appropriate, and if so, in what amount.

Section 27-1-220 does not warrant an actual malice punitive damages instruction in a constructive fraud case without evidence that the defendant intended to deceive or recklessly risked deception.

Dickman v. Ford New Holland · filed 1993-10-25

We conclude that regardless of whether "actual malice," as defined in Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-220 to -221, leaves room for an award of punitive damages in some constructive fraud cases, this is not such a case. The only rational choice for the jury was between finding intent to deceive or no intent to deceive. The jury found the latter. There was no evidence that would support a finding that Ford New Holland, although not intending to deceive, nevertheless recklessly ran the risk of deception. The trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on actual malice was not an abuse of discretion.