Aldridge v. Green Bad Faith The first grounds that Green challenges the punitive damages award on is whether bad faith is an appropriate basis for punitive damages. Courts have generally held that punitive damages are not allowed in breach of contract cases. Courts, though, have allowed punitive damages if there are independent injuries involved based upon in an independent tort. This standard appears to be met in Aldridge’s case. Aldridge may not rely upon breach of duty to justify for punitive damages, but other independent grounds may be used. Courts commonly use the tort of fraud in order to satisfy this element. With the idea that a contract is never established if it was fraudulent in the first place. For example, the Texas
…show more content…
The United State Supreme Court has held that punitive damages do not meet constitutional muster when they are either grossly excessive or are arbitrary punishments. The punitive damage award, in this case, violate the due process clause under both the first and second Gore factors. The third Gore factor on comparable penalties does not appear to apply in this case.
Degree of Reprehensibility While, Green’s conduct was done in bad faith, there is little evidence to suggest its conduct was overly reprehensible. The United States Supreme Court, in State Farm v. Campbell, held that the reprehensibility factor is one of the most important in determining whether a punitive damage award meets constitutional muster. The Court applied a series of factors to consider when determining whether a defendant’s conduct was reprehensible such as whether it caused physical harm, whether it targeted vulnerable clients, and whether there was a pattern of …show more content…
First, an argument could be made that Aldridge was a financial vulnerable plaintiff. Aldridge was an average homeowner going up against a sophisticated corporation. Green’s conduct also appears to not have been an accident with the jury finding that they acted in bad faith. These factors do suggest some support for reprehensibility, but they are largely outweighed by the facts that the conduct was only economic and only isolated in nature. Therefore, the degree of reprehensibility of Green’s conduct appears to be small and so a large punitive damage award seems
The United State Supreme Court has held that punitive damages do not meet constitutional muster when they are either grossly excessive or are arbitrary punishments. The punitive damage award, in this case, violate the due process clause under both the first and second Gore factors. The third Gore factor on comparable penalties does not appear to apply in this case.
Degree of Reprehensibility While, Green’s conduct was done in bad faith, there is little evidence to suggest its conduct was overly reprehensible. The United States Supreme Court, in State Farm v. Campbell, held that the reprehensibility factor is one of the most important in determining whether a punitive damage award meets constitutional muster. The Court applied a series of factors to consider when determining whether a defendant’s conduct was reprehensible such as whether it caused physical harm, whether it targeted vulnerable clients, and whether there was a pattern of …show more content…
First, an argument could be made that Aldridge was a financial vulnerable plaintiff. Aldridge was an average homeowner going up against a sophisticated corporation. Green’s conduct also appears to not have been an accident with the jury finding that they acted in bad faith. These factors do suggest some support for reprehensibility, but they are largely outweighed by the facts that the conduct was only economic and only isolated in nature. Therefore, the degree of reprehensibility of Green’s conduct appears to be small and so a large punitive damage award seems