Wis. Stat. § 895.043

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when evidence shows that the defendant acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights.

Cook v. Public Storage, Inc. · filed 2008-09-25(3)

Wisconsin Stat. § 895.043(3) allows a plaintiff to recover punitive damages if "evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously ... or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff."

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages only when the defendant acted with a purpose to disregard the plaintiff's rights or knew the conduct was substantially certain to disregard them.

Third Education Group, Inc. v. Phelps · filed 2010-01-19(3)

In order to meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3), the plaintiffs evidence must show that the defendant acted “with a purpose to disregard the plaintiffs rights, or [was] aware that his or her acts [were] substantially certain to result in the plaintiffs rights being disregarded.”

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages only when the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or intentionally disregarded the plaintiff's rights.

Jendusa-Nicolai Ex Rel. Dunphy v. Larsen (In Re Larsen) · filed 2010-01-29(3)

If that weren’t enough, under Wisconsin law punitive damages are only available when a defendant “acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.” Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3). Punitive damages are not awarded in Wisconsin unless a defendant acted maliciously, outrageously or in a manner that demonstrated a wanton disregard of personal rights.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages only when the defendant acted maliciously or in an intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights, requiring a deliberate and sufficiently aggravated purpose or awareness that the plaintiff's rights were substantially certain to be disregarded.

Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2010-06-22(3)

A plaintiff "may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff." Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3). ... We have interpreted the statutory standard of an "intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff" to require "a purpose to disregard the plaintiffs rights" or an awareness that one's actions "are substantially certain to result in the plaintiffs rights being disregarded. ... In enacting Wis. Stat. § 895.043, the legislature intended to make punitive damages less readily available.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when clear evidence shows that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or intentionally disregarded the plaintiff's rights.

J. K. v. Peters · filed 2011-09-27(3)

A "plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff." Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3). ... It is simply disingenuous for Peters to argue that fondling a twelve-year-old boy and pressuring him to perform nude exercises was not malicious or did not disregard the boy's rights. ... Given the trial court's findings, it is clear that Peters intentionally and maliciously disregarded EK.'s and J.K.'s rights to a healthy relationship with their son when Peters sexually assaulted M.J.K.

Section 895.043 permits punitive damages when the defendant acted maliciously or intentionally disregarded the plaintiff’s rights, requiring a higher state of mind than wanton, willful, and reckless disregard.

Miller v. American Art Clay Co. · filed 2014-06-23

In Wisconsin, the plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted that the defendant acted maliciously or in an intentional disregard of the plaintiffs rights. Wis. Stat. § 895.043. The statute “heightened the state of mind required of a defendant from a ‘wanton, willful and reckless’ disregard for rights of another to an ‘intentional disregard’ for rights of another.”

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when the defendant intentionally disregards the plaintiff’s rights; malicious or vindictive conduct is not required.

Production Specialties Group, Inc. v. Minsor Systems, Inc. · filed 2008-01-17(3)

In addition, we conclude that the district court did not err in giving a punitive damages instruction because there was sufficient evidence to show that Minsor intentionally disregarded PSG’s rights. For these reasons, we affirm.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when the evidence supports malicious or intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, and the court may uphold a jury finding on that issue.

Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. One2One Communications, LLC · filed 2013-09-04(3)

The only question we need consider here is whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to find that Heverly and 0ne20ne acted maliciously or with intentional or reckless disregard for Quad’s rights. We hold that there was.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when evidence shows malicious conduct or intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Bahena v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC · filed 2019-01-29(3)

In Wisconsin, a plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.

Section 895.043(3) requires malicious conduct or intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, not an intent to cause harm or injury.

DL Anderson's Lakeside Leisure Co., Inc. v. Anderson · filed 2008-12-02(3)

The law requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or intentionally disregarded the rights of the plaintiff, not that a defendant intended to cause harm or injury to the plaintiff.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when evidence shows that the defendant acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Bruzek, Jasen v. Superior Refining Company LLC · filed 2019-09-30(3)

Plaintiffs may receive punitive damages if the evidence shows that defendants acted maliciously towards them or in an intentional disregard of their rights. Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3).

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages for malicious conduct or intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights; intentional disregard requires purposeful or substantially certain disregard and conduct aggravated enough to warrant punishment.

ROEHL TRANSPORT v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2010-06-22(3)

The availability of punitive damages is governed by Wis. Stat. § 895.043. ... Independently reviewing the evidence, we affirm the circuit court's rulings on punitive damages. The evidence does not show that Liberty Mutual had a "purpose" to disregard Roehl Transport's rights or was aware that their acts were "substantially certain" to result in such disregard. Moreover, the conduct was not of a type "sufficiently aggravated" to warrant punitive damages. The circuit court properly withheld the issue of punitive damages from the jury.

Section 895.043(3) sets a heightened evidentiary standard for punitive damages by requiring proof of the defendant's requisite state of mind, such as intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights or malicious conduct.

Groshek v. TREWIN · filed 2010-06-24(3)

However, as noted above, the court has construed Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3) as setting the bar higher for the kind of evidence required to support a punitive damage award, rather than as expanding the category of cases where punitive damages may be awarded.

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when evidence shows the defendant acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights; the conduct must be deliberate, actually disregard those rights, and be sufficiently aggravated to warrant punishment.

Chapes v. Pro-Pac, Inc. · filed 2012-05-30(3)

“The plaintiff may receive punitive damages if evidence is submitted showing that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.” Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3). Specifically, the evidence must show that the defendant’s conduct is: “(1) deliberate, (2) in actual disregard of the rights of another, and (3) sufficiently aggravated to warrant punishment by punitive damages.”

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages when the evidence shows that a defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Eliason, Edward v. Superior Refining Company, LLC · filed 2021-03-31(3)

A plaintiff may receive punitive damages if the evidence shows that defendants acted maliciously towards them or in an intentional disregard of their rights. Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3). In other words, punitive damages may be awarded if a jury determines that defendants’ conduct was “either malicious[] or in wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of plaintiff[s’] rights.” Wis. JI-CIVIL 1707. A defendant’s conduct “is wanton, willful, or in reckless disregard for plaintiff’s rights when it demonstrates an indifference on his or her part to the consequences of his or her actions.” Id.

Section 895.043(3) requires intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights for punitive damages, and the court applies that standard when deciding whether the evidence warrants a jury trial.

Henrikson v. Strapon · filed 2008-08-21(3)

We conclude the circuit court applied the correct legal standard for punitive damages. We also conclude that, viewing the evidence most favorably to Henrikson, there is no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom that Strapon acted in intentional disregard of Henrikson's rights. We therefore affirm.

Section 895.043(3) requires malicious conduct or intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, and a court may not use damages-amount factors to decide whether punitive damages are available.

Boelter v. Tschantz · filed 2009-12-22(3)

On remand the court shall reconsider Boelter's punitive damages claim under the correct standard.

Section 895.043(3) requires punitive-damages conduct to be deliberate, in actual disregard of another’s rights, and sufficiently aggravated to warrant punishment.

Pro-Pac, Inc. v. Chapes (In Re Pro-Pac, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-27(3)

This burden does not require a plaintiff to show that defendant intended to cause harm or injury to the plaintiff.

Section 895.043(3) requires a heightened state of mind rather than intent to injure; intentional disregard is distinct from wanton, willful, and reckless disregard.

Wosinski v. Advance Cast Stone Co. · filed 2017-07-11(3)

In other words, there is no requirement of intent to injure or cause harm to award punitive damages.

Section 895.043(3) requires deliberate conduct in actual disregard of another’s rights that is sufficiently aggravated to warrant punitive damages; intentional disregard includes purpose or substantial certainty.

BERNER CHEESE CORPORATION v. Krug · filed 2008-07-15(3)

We review the factual background of both cases, before we consider whether Krug's conduct warranted submitting a jury question on punitive damages under § 895.043(3).

Section 895.043(3) allows punitive damages only when the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights.

Larsen v. Jendusa-Nicolai · filed 2010-12-30(3)

Furthermore, the state court also awarded Ms. Jendusa-Nicolai punitive damages. Under Wisconsin law, punitive damages are only available when a defendant “acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.” Wis. Stat. § 895.043(3).

Section 895.043(3) permits punitive damages on a common-law conversion claim when the defendant acted maliciously and in intentional disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp. · filed 2018-09-18(3)

On a common law claim of conversion, on the other hand, a plaintiff can recover only actual damages unless he or she can show that the defendant acted maliciously and in intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights.

Section 895.043 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts maliciously toward the plaintiff or intentionally disregards the plaintiff’s rights.

Miller v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America · filed 2011-03-11

Rather, punitive damages are appropriate when “the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.” Wis. Stat. § 895.043 (2007-08). ... The evidence does not demonstrate that Safeco acted maliciously toward the Millers or that it had a “purpose to disregard” the Millers’ rights or an awareness that its actions were “substantially certain to result” in the Millers’ rights being disregarded.

Section 895.043(6) generally limits punitive damages to twice the compensatory award, and the court treats any award above that ratio as outside the statute’s cap.

Epic Systems Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limi · filed 2020-08-20(6)

Although TCS has not pointed us to a single relevant civil penalty for comparison, we recognize that both the $280 million award the district court entered, and a $140 million award that would reflect a 1:1 ratio, comply with Wisconsin’s statutory cap on punitive damages. That cap is one indication of what the Wisconsin legislature has judged to be an inappropriate sanction for reprehensible conduct: any punitive award exceeding a 2:1 ratio is inappropriate. Wis. Stat. § 895.043(6); see AutoZone, 707 F.3d at 840 (“We recognize that this statutory cap suggests that an award of damages at the capped maximum is not outlandish.”).

Section 895.043(6) caps punitive damages at twice the amount of compensatory damages, although constitutional due process may require a lower award in a particular case.

Epic Systems Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limi · filed 2020-11-19(6)

That cap is one indication of what the Wisconsin legislature has judged to be an inappropriate sanction for reprehensible conduct: any punitive award exceeding a 2:1 ratio is inappropriate. Wis. Stat. § 895.043(6); see AutoZone, 707 F.3d at 840 (“We recognize that this statutory cap suggests that an award of damages at the capped maximum is not outlandish.”).

Section 895.043(6) sets a ceiling, rather than a floor, on punitive damages: an award may not exceed twice the compensatory damages or $200,000, whichever is greater.

Rock Hemp Corp. v. Dunn · filed 2022-10-11(6)

In fact, the punitive damages statute Rock Hemp cites sets a ceiling, not a floor, for punitive damage awards in Wisconsin and therefore does not “affirmatively and unambiguously reveal[] that the predicates for removal are present.” Id. at 824.

Section 895.043(6) limits punitive damages to twice the compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff or $200,000, whichever is greater, and the compensatory damages considered are not restricted to losses left unpaid by insurance.

Reynolds v. MJC America Ltd · filed 2025-02-28(6)

see also Wis. Stat. § 895.043(6) (limiting punitive damages to “twice the amount of any compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff or $200,000, whichever is greater”). ... Gree has not pointed to any case where a court held that any sum paid by insurance must be excluded from the assessment of the appropriate amount of punitive damages. ... The fact of insurance should not limit a tortfeasor’s obligations. ... Therefore, Gree’s motion to exclude punitive damages will be denied. Likewise, Gree’s motion to limit the consideration of punitive damages to those damages that Reynolds sustained that were not covered by insurance will be denied.

Section 895.043(3) requires a court deciding punitive damages by default to inquire beyond the complaint and allow proof of additional supporting facts.

Rao v. WMA Securities, Inc. · filed 2008-06-27(3)

We further conclude that the circuit court erred in denying the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages solely on the basis of allegations in the complaint and in denying the plaintiff an opportunity to prove additional facts in support of the punitive damages claim.