law-punitive-damages | gross negligence |
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDS | EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
In Re Columbia Med. Center of Las Colinas, Inc., No. 09-0733 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(exemplary damages reduced by mandamus after post-appeal final judgment)
IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL
CENTER; from Dallas County
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0733 IN RE COLUMBIA MED. CTR. OF LAS COLINAS, INC.
Punitive damages awards that are statutorily capped are required to be recalculated when the actual
damages against which they are measured are reduced on appeal. See, e.g., Gunn Infiniti, Inc. v. O’
Byrne, 996 S.W.2d 854, 861 (Tex. 1999) (vacating mental anguish damages because of legally
insufficient evidence and reforming the judgment to reflect recalculated Deceptive Trade Practices Act
damages at three times economic damages); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. de la Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 924
(Tex. 1993) (remanding for a recalculation of the punitive damages cap because wrongful death
damages must be excluded); see also Seminole Pipeline Co. v. Broad Leaf Partners, Inc., 979 S.W.2d
730, 760–61 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (“Because the award for . . . mental
anguish is vacated, the punitive damage cap and prejudgment interest must be recalculated.”).
Indeed, the Hogues do not dispute that an order expressly requiring a reduction of the punitive
damages award would have been proper. The question presented here, though, is whether our
judgment had that effect.
Although our judgment did not expressly address the amount of punitive damages, the statute
capping punitive damages as measured against economic damages requires a reduction in punitive
damages as a matter of law. See Gen. Chem. Corp, 852 S.W.2d at 924. We hold that, regardless of
whether an appellate court judgment expressly commands it, trial courts must give effect to statutory
caps on damages when the parties raise the issue. Accordingly, to give full effect to our judgment
vacating a portion of economic damages, the trial court was required to reduce the punitive damages
award in compliance with the statutory cap. By failing to do so, the trial court abused its discretion.
Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, No. 04-0728 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice Wainwright)
(insurance coverage and indemnification of punitive damages arising from gross negligence)
The Court answers the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice
Willett joined.
Justice Johnson delivered a concurring opinion.