Nickerson

Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co.

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 939·209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690·5 Cal. App. 5th 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 3, 2016B234271ACalifornia9,219 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

The sole issue raised by both parties to this appeal concerns the punitive damage award; specifically, whether the trial court’s remittitur of that award from $19 million to $350,000, based on a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages of 10 to one, comports with due process. Thomas Nickerson sued Stonebridge Life Insurance Company (Stonebridge) challenging the insurer’s partial denial of his claim for hospitalization benefits. The trial court ruled that a policy provision limiting coverage was not conspicuous, plain, and clear and was therefore unenforceable, entitling Nickerson to $31,500 in additional benefits under the policy. A jury then found that Stonebridge had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded Nickerson $35,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. The jury found Stonebridge acted with fraud and fixed the punitive damage award at $19 million. The trial court conditionally granted Stonebridge’s new trial motion unless Nickerson consented to a reduction of the punitive damages to $350,0009. Both parties appeal. After weighing all of the relevant factors and circumstances pursuant to State Farm Mut.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.