THOMAS NICKERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent

THOMAS NICKERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent

Brandt attorney fees are compensatory damages and may be included in the punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio for constitutional review under Gore even when the trial court, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, determines those fees after the jury's verdict; exclusion of such fees would skew the constitutional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
63 Cal. 4th 363; 371 P.3d 242; 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 23; 2016 Cal. LEXIS 3757
Parties
Plaintiff and Appellant: Thomas Nickerson; Defendant and Respondent: Stonebridge Life Insurance Company
Court
California Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
S213873
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Review by the Supreme Court of California (grant of Review; Reversal of Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed
Legal Topics
Punitive Damages, Compensatory Damages, Attorney Fees (brandt), Due Process, Remittitur, Judicial Review
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Insurance Law Tort Civil Procedure Damages Law Punitive Damages Compensatory Damages Attorney Fees (brandt) +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Nickerson

Plaintiff and Appellant

Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Review by the Supreme Court of California (grant of Review; Reversal of Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attorney fees recoverable under Brandt as compensatory damages may be included in the punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio when the fees are determined by the trial court after the jury verdict
  2. 2 Whether Gore guideposts for reviewing punitive damages are limited to evidence presented to the jury
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of postverdict Brandt fees from the constitutional ratio is required

Ratio Decidendi

Brandt attorney fees are compensatory damages and may be included in the punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio for constitutional review under Gore even when the trial court, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, determines those fees after the jury's verdict; exclusion of such fees would skew the constitutional analysis and is unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed

Orders

  • Court of Appeal judgment reversed.
  • Remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with this decision.