Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractdamagesattorneyappealtrialverdictdue processpunitive damagescompensatory damagesbad faith
plaintiffdamagesattorneyappealtrialverdictdue processpunitive damagescompensatory damages

Related Cases

Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Shepherd, 167 So.3d 304, 84 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 728
View Case »
Wilson v. Hayes, 464 N.W.2d 250
View Case »
Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405, 54 USLW 4022
View Case »
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 130 S.Ct. 2149, 176 L.Ed.2d 998, 78 USLW 4448, 49 Employee Benefits Cas. 1001, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6279, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7481, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 24007B, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 351
View Case »
Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363, 371 P.3d 242, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6028, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5547

Facts

Thomas Nickerson, a veteran who is paralyzed, was hospitalized for 109 days after breaking his leg. He sought benefits from Stonebridge Life Insurance Company under a policy that promised $350 per day for hospital confinement. Stonebridge only paid for 18 days, claiming the rest was not medically necessary. Nickerson sued for breach of contract and bad faith, resulting in a jury awarding him $19 million in punitive damages, which the trial court later sought to reduce, leading to appeals.

On February 11, 2008, plaintiff Thomas Nickerson, who is paralyzed from the chest down, broke his leg when he fell from the wheelchair lift on his van. He was taken to the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Long Beach, where, as a veteran, he was entitled to medical care at no cost. After being treated in the emergency room, Nickerson was admitted to the hospital and placed in a unit equipped to treat paraplegics and quadriplegics.

Issue

Is an award of attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court properly included as compensatory damages when the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded when awarded by the trial court after the jury's verdict?

We granted review, limited to the following question: 'Is an award of attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court properly included as compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict?'

Rule

Compensatory damages for attorney fees incurred to recover insurance benefits may be included in calculating the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages to determine if punitive damages exceed due process limits.

Compensatory damages for attorney fees incurred to recover insurance benefits may be included in calculating the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages to determine whether the punitive damages exceed due process limits.

Analysis

The court determined that the Court of Appeal erred in excluding the Brandt fees from the punitive-compensatory ratio calculation. It reasoned that the fees are compensatory damages and should be considered regardless of when they are awarded, as excluding them would skew the ratio and impair the review of whether the punitive damages award was excessive.

We conclude that the Court of Appeal erred. In determining whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive, Brandt fees may be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, regardless of whether the fees are awarded by the trier of fact as part of its verdict or are determined by the trial court after the verdict has been rendered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the inclusion of Brandt fees in the punitive damages calculation.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Who won?

Thomas Nickerson prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled in his favor regarding the inclusion of attorney fees in the punitive damages calculation.

Thomas Nickerson prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled in his favor regarding the inclusion of attorney fees in the punitive damages calculation.

You must be