S.D. Codified Laws § 21-1-4.1

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis for punitive damages before discovery or submission to the jury, but does not set the jury’s burden of proof.

Flockhart v. Wyant · filed 1991-03-13

SDCL 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against. That does not establish a clear and convincing evidence standard but merely requires clear and convincing evidence to show a reasonable basis. The clear and convincing language merely modifies the “reasonable basis” language to make a prima facie showing that punitive damages may be in order.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim goes to the jury. This is a preliminary prima facie showing.

Vreugdenhil v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A. · filed 1991-03-27

SDCL 21-1-4.1 conditions the submission of punitive damages to the jury on a showing by "clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct." The burden the proponent bears is demonstrating a "reasonable basis" to believe punitive damages are warranted. This "reasonable basis" must be shown by "clear and convincing evidence." Thus, the proponent's burden is a preliminary, lower-order quantum of proof than must be established at trial. It is a "prima facie case" for punitive damages.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the opposing party acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim proceeds to discovery or the jury.

Case v. Murdock · filed 1992-07-01

As we have recently stated, SDCL 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton, or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against. This statute merely requires clear and convincing evidence to show a reasonable basis. ... We agree in the trial court’s determination and its view that a reasonable basis to indicate willful, wanton or malicious conduct by Case and Sides was established by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis for punitive damages before the claim proceeds to discovery or a jury; it does not impose that standard on review of the evidence supporting an award.

Shippen v. Parrott · filed 1993-08-25

SDCL 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against. That does not establish a clear and convincing evidence standard but merely requires clear and convincing evidence to show a reasonable basis. The clear and convincing language merely modifies the "reasonable basis" language to make a prima facie showing that punitive damages may be in order. To resolve the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we examine the record to determine only if there is "competent and substantial evidence" to support the verdict.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim may go to the jury.

Axness v. Aqreva LLC · filed 2015-07-27

Under South Dakota law, before a punitive damages claim can be submitted to the jury, SDCL § 21-1-4.1 requires the Court to determine whether there exists clear and convincing evidence providing “a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.”

Section 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to screen a punitive damages claim before related discovery and before submitting it to the factfinder.

Schaffer v. Edward D. Jones & Co. · filed 1996-07-24

Jones is protected by SDCL 21-1-4.1 ... which requires the trial court to determine both before discovery is allowed and before the matter goes to the jury, that the plaintiff has established a prima facie ease that the defendant’s conduct meets the requirements for imposition of punitive damages per SDCL 21-1-3.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a reasonable basis for a punitive damages claim, and a claimant must have an opportunity to develop a record to establish that basis before the claim is submitted to the jury.

Bertelsen v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2011-04-06

By doing so, the trial court thwarted the Bertelsens’ efforts to establish a reasonable basis for their punitive damages claim. On remand, the trial court should allow the Bertelsens to develop a record on their punitive damages claim. If the Bertelsens present evidence establishing a reasonable basis for their claim, it should be submitted to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 permits a punitive damages claim to go to the jury when clear and convincing evidence shows a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully or wantonly; proof of malice is not required.

Hunter v. Hagen · filed 1987-10-21

Pending before the Court is the matter of SDCL 21-1-4.1, which requires that before a claim of punitive damages may be submitted to the jury, a hearing shall be held and the Court shall determine that there is clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable basis exists to believe Defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously. ... ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages may be submitted to the jury because there is clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable basis exists to believe Defendant acted willfully and wantonly by driving while intoxicated. The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that before it can submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury, it must find evidence of malice.

A punitive damages claim may be struck when the claimant fails to obtain the finding required by § 21-1-4.1.

City of Mitchell v. Beauregard · filed 1988-10-26

The record before us is void of any attempts to effect compliance with SDCL 21-1-4.1 and the trial court never entered the required finding. We need not determine the correctness of the trial court's ruling on the applicability of punitive damages against a municipal corporation; manifestly, the trial court's ruling in striking defendants' punitive damage claim was correct for the reason of the non-compliance with SDCL 21-1-4.1.

Section 21-1-4.1 limits punitive damages to willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.

Bierle v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 1992-04-30

SDCL 21-1-4.1 reflects legislative intent that punitive damages be awarded only for willful, wanton, or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim goes to the jury.

Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc. · filed 1994-04-20

SDCL 21-1-4.1 conditions the submission of punitive or exemplary damages to the jury on a showing by "clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct."

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim may proceed to discovery or the jury.

Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1994-09-14

Clear and convincing evidence existed to form a reasonable basis to present the issue of punitive ... damages to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 allows a punitive damages claim to proceed to trial when clear and convincing evidence gives a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously.

Brown v. Youth Services International of South Dakota, Inc. · filed 2000-03-15

Such damages cannot be awarded unless the Court finds, “after a heating and based upon clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton, or malicious conduct on the party of the party claimed against.” SDCL 21-1-4.1. ... However, the evidence of the Academy’s failure to investigate the claimed earlier complaints of Jumal Frazier and Harvey Brown does form a reasonable basis to believe that the Academy’s is guilty of willful and wanton misconduct.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the opposing party acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before punitive damages may be submitted to a jury.

Maryott v. First National Bank of Eden · filed 2001-04-04

Under SDCL 21-1-4.1, the trial court must find by "clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against." ... In light of our precedent, Maryott has failed to show that the trial court was clearly erroneous in not submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted wilfully, wantonly or maliciously before a punitive damages claim goes to the jury.

Diesel MacHinery, Inc. v. B.R. Lee Industries, Inc. · filed 2003-09-30

SDCL § 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable basis to believe defendant acted wilfully, wantonly or maliciously before submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before punitive damages may be submitted to the jury.

Hoaas v. Griffiths · filed 2006-03-22

In order for the issue of punitive damages to be submitted to the jury, the proponent of those damages must establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a party’s conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious. ... Thus, the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that there was a reasonable basis to believe ... Griffiths’ conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious. That determination was not clearly erroneous.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the opposing party acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim may go to the jury.

Kostel v. Schwartz · filed 2008-08-20

Before a punitive damages claim can be submitted to the jury “a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against” must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence[.]” ... While there was sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding of negligence warranting compensatory damages, we find no basis upon which to conclude Dr. Schwartz’s conduct in treating Kostel rose to a level that would have justified sending the issue of punitive damages to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim goes to the jury.

Selle v. Tozser · filed 2010-07-28

To submit a punitive damage claim to the jury, the circuit court must find by “clear and convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.” Id. “This statute merely requires clear and convincing ... evidence to show a reasonable basis.”

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim may be submitted to a factfinder.

McKenzie v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2017-05-12

Before a claim for punitive damages may be submitted to a factfinder, the court must find that a reasonable basis exists to “believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.” SDCL 21-1-4.1. The party seeking punitive damages must make this showing by clear and convincing evidence. ... Plaintiff has met the standard by clear and convincing evidence that Farmers Insurance acted with presumed malice by its willful actions and inactions.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously; that standard applies in federal diversity cases.

Long v. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. · filed 2024-06-03

However, SDCL § 21-1-4.1 also has a substantive law component of “clear and convincing evidence” of a “reasonable basis to believe [the defendant engaged in] willful, wanton or malicious conduct,” and that substantive component must be applied in this diversity case.

Section 21-1-4.1 allows a punitive damages claim to go to the jury when clear and convincing evidence provides a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously; evidence of presumed malice can meet that threshold.

Fiechtner v. American West Ins. · filed 2025-11-05

Because evidence of presumed malice is sufficient to support punitive damages, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in finding a reasonable basis for submitting Fiechtner’s punitive damages claim to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 allows a jury to consider punitive damages only after a finding of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.

Johnson v. UPS · filed 2020-06-24

A circuit court may allow a jury to consider a punitive damages award only after a finding of “willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.”

Section 21-1-4.1 permits discovery on a punitive damages claim when clear and convincing evidence establishes a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously.

Fiegen v. North Star, Ltd. · filed 1991-03-27

When seeking to obtain discovery regarding a claim for punitive damages, the moving party must establish, based on clear and convincing evidence, that a reasonable basis exists to believe that there has been willful, wanton or malicious conduct.

Section 21-1-4.1’s procedural restrictions on punitive damages discovery do not apply in federal diversity cases.

Burke v. Ability Insurance Co. · filed 2013-05-31

This court has previously held on numerous occasions, however, that SDCL 21-1-4.1 is a procedural statute that conflicts with the federal rules of evidence, which means that the statute is not applied by federal courts sitting in diversity.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a hearing and clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis for willful, wanton, or malicious conduct before punitive damages discovery may begin.

Fluth v. Schoenfelder Constr., Inc. · filed 2018-08-29

The evidence raises questions of fact whether Weisser acted willfully, wantonly, and maliciously. ... Consequently, it also did not err in granting Fluth’s motion permitting discovery on the issue of punitive damages for negligence.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a determination before punitive damages discovery, but its procedural requirement does not control discovery in a federal diversity action.

Tovares v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. · filed 2020-08-14

FED. R. CIV. P. 26 conflicts with SDCL § 21-1-4.1 in that the former requires no hearing to take place before permitting discovery on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a showing of malice to support a claim for punitive damages.

Yankton Production Credit Ass'n v. Jensen · filed 1987-12-09

Under South Dakota law, one seeking punitive damages must show malice on the part of the party from whom damages are sought. SDCL 21-1-4.1 and SDCL 21-3-2; Hulstein v. Meilman Food Industries, Inc., 293 N.W.2d 889 (S.D. 1980); Baumgartner's Electric Construction Co. v. DeVries, 77 S.D. 273, 91 N.W. 2d 663 (1958), rev'd on other grounds 359 U.S. 498, 79 S.Ct. 1117, 3 L.Ed.2d 976 (1959). In the instant case, the trial court specifically found that Jensens admitted there was no bad faith, ill-will, or malice by the PCA toward Jensens and, defendants having raised no issue as to that finding, we now determine that the trial court erred in not striking the prayer for exemplary damages in response to PCA's motion.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a reasonable basis to believe the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or maliciously before a punitive damages claim may go to the jury.

Wright v. Temple · filed 2021-03-03

Whether a request for punitive damages may be submitted to a jury is governed by SDCL 21-1-4.1: ... As to the second claim, Wright did not, and could not, argue that Temple’s negligent conduct in damaging the plane provided a basis for punitive damages because a claim for punitive damages requires a showing of malicious or willful conduct beyond mere negligence. ... Therefore, the circuit court did not err refusing to submit the punitive damages claim to the jury.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a hearing before a punitive damages claim is submitted to the finder of fact, but the hearing need not occur before trial.

Brandriet v. Norwest Bank South Dakota, N.A. · filed 1993-04-28

In the normal course of events, a pretrial hearing would have been held on the issue of punitive damages. However, SDCL 21-1-4.1 does not require a pretrial hearing, nor was Norwest expecting one.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a hearing before a punitive damages claim is submitted to the jury, but the hearing need not occur before trial.

Schuldies v. Millar · filed 1996-09-25

There is no absolute requirement for a pretrial hearing. Brandriet v. Norwest Bank, 499 N.W.2d 613, 618 (S.D.1993). Before trial, the Schuldies moved for a hearing required under SDCL 21-1-4.1 and requested that it be held in conjunction with their case-in-chief. The trial court agreed and at the close of evidence, found that each side had made a prima facie case for punitive damages and allowed submission of the issue to the jury. Both sides sought punitive damages; both had a fair opportunity to litigate fully the punitive damage issue. We see no error.

Section 21-1-4.1 permits the required punitive damages hearing to be held at the close of evidence.

Kieser v. Southeast Properties · filed 1997-07-16

There is no requirement that the required hearing take place before the trial; it may be held at the close of evidence.

Section 21-1-4.1 permits the required punitive damages hearing to be held at the close of the evidence.

Boomsma v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad · filed 2002-08-21

There is no requirement that the required hearing take place before the trial; it may be held at the close of the evidence.

Section 21-1-4.1 applies to punitive damages claims based on fraud and deceit.

Dahl v. Sittner · filed 1991-08-28

Is SDCL 21-1-4.1 applicable to claims for punitive damages based on fraud and deceit? We hold that it is.

Section 21-1-4.1 does not bar a punitive damages claim against a nonparty in the underlying case tried within a legal malpractice action.

Haberer v. Rice · filed 1994-01-26

First Bank is not a party to the present cause of action as defined under SDCL 21-1-4.1. First Bank is the plaintiff in a foreclosure action defending a counterclaim in the case within a case.

Section 21-1-4.1 sets no fixed amount of alcohol consumption that automatically permits a punitive damages claim; the court considers the circumstances of the driver's conduct.

Berry v. Risdall · filed 1998-02-25

Today we do not adopt a bright line rule that any exact amount of alcohol consumption amounts to conduct sufficient to trigger SDCL 21-1-4.1 in all cases. Here the trial court heard the witnesses and was able to judge their demeanor and credibility in weighing the evidence on this issue. We cannot say that given all the facts, the trial court was clearly erroneous in its finding.

Section 21-1-4.1 sets procedural requirements for punitive damages claims that do not apply in federal diversity cases.

Ammann v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd. · filed 1996-08-02

SDCL 21-1-4.1 is procedural and is not applicable to federal courts sitting in diversity.

Section 21-1-4.1 is procedural and need not be applied by federal courts sitting in diversity and applying South Dakota law.

Lundstrom, Jr. v. Homolka, P.A. · filed 2021-10-21

As I have previously held, SDCL 21-1-4.1 is a procedural statute which “need not be applied by federal courts sitting in diversity matters and applying South Dakota law.”

Section 21-1-4.1 requires a hearing before a punitive damages claim goes to the finder of fact, but its procedural requirements do not apply in federal diversity cases.

Indian Land Capital Company, LLC v. Highland Park Management · filed 2026-03-31

Because SDCL § 21-1-4.1 is procedural and not substantive, however, it is not applicable to federal courts sitting in diversity, such as this court.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis for finding malice for a punitive damages claim to survive summary judgment.

Stengle v. The Walgreen Company · filed 2021-03-08

Thus, this Court has previously required that for a punitive damages claim to survive on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy the standard in SDCL § 21-1-4.1 by ... showing by clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable basis exists upon which a jury could find the existence of malice.

Section 21-1-4.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable basis for finding malice for a punitive damages claim to survive summary judgment.

Espinoza v. Fowler · filed 2023-09-12

Thus, this Court has previously required that for a punitive damages claim to survive a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy the standard in SDCL § 21-1-4.1 by showing by clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable basis exists upon which a jury could find the existence of malice.

Section 21-1-4.1 does not expressly prohibit requesting punitive damages in an initial complaint.

Harris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-09

Moreover, unlike Colorado law, the South Dakota statute setting forth the procedural requirements of a punitive or exemplary damages request does not expressly prohibit a party from requesting such relief at the outset of a case.