August
2007
50 State Survey: Is There Coverage for
Punitive Damages Awards?
Contributors:
Katherine Klima Liner
California
Illinois
New Jersey
Please note that statutes and case law vary from state to state and from time to time.
This survey does not encompass all possible exceptions to statutes and it does not
discuss all possible case law variations. In addition, choice of law rules may impact the
result in certain cases.©
New York
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language
allows coverage
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Werfel, 162
So. 103, 106 (Ala. 1935) (noting punitive
damages are insurable under terms of auto
policy).
Related Decisions: Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins.
Co. v. Murphy, 146 So. 387, 390–91 (Ala.
1933) (stating that public policy prohibits
coverage for intentional conduct).
Capital Motor Lines v. Loring, 189 So. 897,
899 (Ala. 1939) (noting that punitive
damages are recoverable under policy,
insurer voluntarily assumed obligation).
Ex Parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723, 733 (Ala.
2002) (same as Fidelity-Phoenix, supra).
Omni Ins. Co. v. Foreman, 802 So.2d 195,
199 (Ala. 2001) (holding that directly
assessed punitive damages are insurable).
Armstrong v. Security Ins. Group, 288
So.2d 134, 136 (Ala. 1973) (noting there is
no public policy prohibition against
indemnification of an insured for the
wrongdoing of another).
Hill v. Campbell, 804 So.2d 1107, 1111 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2001) (stating that exclusion of
auto liability coverage for punitive damages
did not violate public policy and was valid in
personal injury case; the policy stated that the
exclusion did not apply to wrongful death
cases); see also Lavender v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 1517, 1517–18 (11th
Cir. 1987).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
1
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language
allows coverage
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. City of
Valdez, 684 P.2d 861, 863 (Alaska 1984)
(noting that city liability policy covered
punitives as “sums” under policy; public
policy considerations are inapplicable when
insured is a public entity).
Related Decisions: Bellefonte Ins. Co. v.
Wayson, 489 F. Supp. 58, 60–61 (D. Alaska
1980) (stating that while the Alaska Supreme
Court might recognize that punitives are not
insurable on a public policy basis, other
public policy considerations favor coverage
for punitive damages where insurer
wrongfully fails to defend).
LeDoux v. Continental Ins. Co., 666 F.
Supp. 178, 180 (D. Alaska 1987) (noting
that punitive damages are insurable because
policy covers “any amounts” the
policyholder is obligated to pay; if there was
no coverage, the insurer could have
included an exclusion); see also Fleegel v.
Estate of Boyles, 61 P.3d 1267, 1271 n. 11
(Alaska 2002).
Parker Drilling Co. v. Hughes, Thorness,
Gantz, Powell & Brundin, Nos. 96-35493,
96-35800, 1997 WL 469644, at *3 (9th Cir.
Aug. 18, 1997) (citing LeDoux, supra)
(noting that an indemnity agreement can
cover punitive damages).
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Marion Equip. Co.,
894 P.2d 664, 671 (Alaska 1995) (holding
that punitive damages are insurable, but there
is no indemnity for “willful misconduct” in
the construction industry except as allowed by
statute).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence,
26 P.3d 1074, 1081 (Alaska 2001) (stating
that public policy does not prohibit the
“insurability of punitive damages”).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
2
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Arizona
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable for
vicarious
liability unless
excluded
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Policy language
allows coverage,
unless policy
excludes coverage
*Price v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
502 P.2d 522, 524 (Ariz. 1972) (noting that
public policy considerations against
coverage for punitives are outweighed by
public policy that insurer should provide
coverage for premium accepted; express
exclusion is necessary to eliminate coverage
from general liability policy).
Contrary Authority: State Farm v. Wilson,
782 P.2d 727, 732 (Ariz. 1989) (noting
underinsured motorist carrier was not required
to pay punitives; insured had no reasonable
expectation of such coverage and public
policy is against insurance for punitives in
context of uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage).
Cassel v. Schacht, 683 P.2d 294, 295 (Ariz.
1984) (stating that motor vehicle liability
policy exclusion for punitive damage
coverage is valid).
Related Decision: State v. Sanchez, 579 P.2d
568, 571 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978) (stating
vicariously assessed punitive damages arising
out of recklessness, wantonness, or gross
negligence would likely be insurable in
Arizona because directly assessed punitive
damages arising out of such conduct are
insurable; following this case AZ amended
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-621(H) to provide
immunity to the State for liability arising out
of a judgment for willful and wanton conduct
resulting in punitive or exemplary damages).
*Note: This case involved vicarious
liability.
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
3
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Insurable,
except possibly
when arising
from intentional
tort
Policy language
allows coverage;
public policy
generally does not
prohibit coverage
Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Daniel, 440 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Ark. 1969)
(noting there was punitive damages
coverage because auto insurer agreed to pay
“all sums” insured liable for; public policy
does not prohibit coverage for punitive
damages arising from accidents, as opposed
to intentional torts).
Related Decision: Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. V.
Alan Curtis Enterprises, Inc., No. 4:056-CV01317, 2006 WL 3542986, at *10–12 (E.D.
Ark. Dec. 8, 2006) (noting that the “as
opposed to intentional torts” language in
Southern Farm Bureau was dicta; suggesting
that policies may indemnify for intentional
torts if policy language covers such an
action).
Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Ark. La. Gas Co., 572
S.W.2d 393, 394–95 (Ark. 1978) (stating
Arkansas public policy does not preclude
coverage for punitive damages under a
liability policy).
Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., 962 S.W.2d 735, 742 (Ark. 1998)
(noting directly assessed punitives are
insurable; however the Arkansas Supreme
Court distinguished punitives arising from
intentional torts).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
4
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
California
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Not insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
prohibits coverage
for punitive
damages
Authority for Prevailing Approach
PPG Indus., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 975
P.2d 652, 658 (Cal. 1999) (noting public policy
prohibits indemnification for punitive damages).
Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heiman & Bernstein,
LLP, 30 Cal. 4th 1037, 1046 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)
(same as PPG, supra).
Peterson v. Superior Court, 642 P.2d 1305, 1311
(Cal. 1982) (citing and explaining California rule
that public policy prohibits payment of punitive
damages by insurers).
CAL. INS. CODE § 533 (1993) (stating an insurer is
not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of its
insured); Cf. Dart Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 484 F.2d 1295, 1297 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting
that § 533 does not apply where insured is not
personally at fault).
Save Mart Supermarkets v. Underwriters at
Lloyd’s London, 843 F. Supp. 597, 605 (N.D. Cal.
1994) (stating that § 533 is an implied exclusionary
clause statutorily read into all insurance policies).
Stonewall Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Johnson
Controls, Inc., 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 713, 716 (Cal. Dist.
Ct. App. 1993) (noting that under California public
policy there is no coverage for any portion of a
judgment awarding punitive damages).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: USF & G v. Janich, 3 F.R.D.
16, 19 (S.D. Cal. 1943) (noting that policy
language would include coverage for exemplary
damages).
J.C. Penny Cas. Ins. Co. v. M. K., 804 P.2d 689,
702 (Cal. 1991) (stating punitive damages can not
be indemnified).
City Products Corp. v. Globe Indem. Co., 151 Cal.
Rptr. 494, 497, 500 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App., 1979)
(noting under California law, the imposition of
punitive damages upon a corporation is based
upon its own fault; it is not imposed vicariously by
virtue of the fault of others and that public policy
of this state prohibits insurance covering punitive
damages levied against a plaintiff).
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Pac.
Southwest Airlines, 786 F.Supp. 867, 871 (C.D.
Cal 1992) (holding vicarious liability exception
not applicable to successor corporation where
form of merger put successor on notice that it was
purchasing predecessor subject to that entity‟s
liability).
Arenson v. Nat’l Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co., 286 P.2d
816, 818 (Cal. 1955) (stating § 533 has no
application to a situation where the insured is not
personally at fault).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
5
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Not insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Public policy
prohibits coverage,
also policy
exclusion
Lira v. Shelter Ins. Co., 913 P.2d 514, 517
(Colo. 1996) (noting auto policy provided
no coverage for punitive damages; Colo.
Supreme Court also cites state public policy
that prohibits insurers from providing
coverage for punitive damages).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Equitex, Inc. v. Ungar, 60
P.3d 746, 750 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002) (noting
public policy prohibits insuring against
intentional acts).
Gleason v. Fryer, 491 P.2d 85, 86 (Colo. Ct.
App. 1971) (stating auto policy did not
provide coverage for exemplary damages).
Universal Indem. Ins. Co. v. Tenery, 39 P.2d
776, 779 (Colo. 1934) (noting insurance
company did not participate in wrongdoing
and was under no contract to indemnify as
such; the injured will not be allowed to
collect from a non-participating party for a
wrong against the public).
Bohrer v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 12 P.3d
854, 856 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000) (stating
directly assessed punitive damages are not
insurable); see also Estate of Wright v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 53 P.3d 683, 687
(Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
6
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Common law
punitive
damages are
probably
covered (limited
to Ï‟s attorney
fees & nontaxable costs),
but statutory
punitive
damages are
probably not
covered
(imposed to
punish & deter);
vicarious
liability for any
type of punitive
damages is
probably
covered
Disagreement over
purpose of
punitive damages
(punishment of
tortfeasor vs.
compensation for
plaintiff)
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Tedesco v. Md. Cas. Co., 18 A.2d 357, 359
(Conn. 1941) (stating award of double damages
was intended as a fine or punishment and, thus,
is not insurable).
Bodner v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 610 A.2d
1212, 1221–22 (Conn. 1992) (noting a
“tortfeasor may not protect himself from liability
by seeking indemnification from his insurer for
damages, punitive in nature, that were imposed
on him for his own intentional or reckless
wrongdoing”).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Shernow, 610
A.2d 1281, 1285 n.4 (Conn. 1992) (stating it is
against public policy to insure against punitive
damages arising from intentional wrongdoing).
Caulfield v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 627 A.2d 466,
466 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993) (noting directly
assessed punitives are not insurable).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Lanese v. Carlson, 344
A.2d 361, 364 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1975)
(stating the purpose of punitive damages is
compensatory, not punitive, in fact and
effect).
LaBlanc v. Spector, 378 F.Supp. 301, 305 (D.
Conn. 1973) (noting the term „punitive‟ is a
misnomer; punitive damages in Connecticut
serve a compensatory function limited to
plaintiff‟s actual costs).
Avis Rent A Car Sys. Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 526 A.2d 522, 526 (Conn. 1987) (noting
“all sums” policy language provides coverage
for statutory treble damage award against car
lessor; because Avis is subject to vicarious
liability, treble damage award is covered).
Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 839
A.2d 1250, 1258 (Conn. 2004) (stating statute
required auto dealer to furnish surety bond of
$20K as indemnity for loss caused by the dealer;
the court said that these bonds do not provide
indemnity for an award of punitive damages).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
7
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Public policy does
not prohibit
coverage for
punitive damages,
policy language
could include
coverage
Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 610
A.2d 1352, 1354 (Del. 1992) (stating
punitives covered where UM/UIM policy
ambiguous on whether “damages” and “all
damages” included punitive damages; also
public policy allows such coverage in
UM/UIM policies as it does for liability
policies).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Price v. Continental Ins.
Co., 768 A.2d 975, 977–78 (Del. Ch. 2000)
(citing Jones & Whalen, supra).
Whalen v. On-Deck, Inc., 514 A.2d 1072,
1074 (Del. 1986) (noting public policy does
not prohibit liability insurer from being
obligated to pay punitive damages assessed
against insured).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
8
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Florida
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable,
except for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
prohibits coverage
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Country Manors Ass’n v. Master Antenna
Sys., 534 So.2d 1187, 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1989) (holding coverage for punitive
damages is prohibited by public policy if
imposed as a result of direct liability, but
not for vicarious liability; treble damages
are a penalty and coverage for the same is
precluded by public policy).
Northwestern Nat’l Cas. Co. v. McNulty,
307 F.2d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 1962)
(recognizing that if an individual were
allowed to shift punitive damages to an
insurance carrier, “punitive damages would
serve no useful purpose”).
Perez v. Otero, 415 So. 2d 101, 101–02
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (stating no
coverage for punitive damages on the basis
of public policy).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Sterling Ins. Co. v. Hughes,
187 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966),
cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1966) (noting
liability policy which obligated insurer to pay
“all sums” includes an obligation to pay
punitive damages, public policy is not violated
by insuring against punitive damages because of
vicarious liability); see also Travelers Ins. Co v.
Wilson, 261 So.2d 545, 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1972); Schwab v. First Appalachian Ins. Co., 58
F.R.D. 615, 622 (S.D. Fla. 1973).
U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So. 2d
1061, 1064 (Fla. 1983) (stating Florida public
policy does not preclude insurance coverage of
punitive damages when insured himself is not
personally at fault, but is merely vicariously
liable for another‟s wrong).
Highlands Ins. Co. v. McCutchen, 486 So.2d 4,
5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (noting vicariously
assessed punitive damages are insurable).
Contrary Authority: Morgan Int’l Realty, Inc. v.
Dade Underwriters Ins. Agency, Inc., 617 So.2d
455, 459 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (recognizing
an exception for vicarious liability, but did not
apply exception in this case where the person at
fault was an officer of the company; explaining
that a corporation acts through its officers).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
9
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Freedom of
contract; allowed
by public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Federal Ins. Co., v. Nat’l Distributing Co.,
417 S.E.2d 671, 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
(recognizing that insuring against punitive
damages does not violate public policy);
GA. CODE ANN. § 33-7-3(1), (10) (1996)
(stating insurance against punitive damages
is authorized).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: The Greenwood decision
also stated that where an insured employer is
found liable for punitive damages by reason
of vicarious liability and where the employer
was otherwise free from fault, public policy
should not prohibit coverage (citing Harris,
Inc. v. Black, 204 S.E. 2d 779, 779 (1974)).
Greenwood Cemetery, Inc. v. Travelers
Indem. Co., 232 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ga. 1977)
(noting public policy does not prohibit
insuring against punitives; general liability
policy provides coverage for legal liability
which includes punitive damages).
Lunceford v. Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co., 495
S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (same as
Greenwood, supra).
Hooters of Augusta, Inc., v. American
Global Ins. Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1377
(S.D. Ga. 2003) (stating that if punitive
damages are not explicitly excluded in
liability insurance policy, it is reasonable to
conclude that policy provides coverage); see
generally Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Somers, 591 S.E.2d 430, 434 (Ga. Ct. App.
2003).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
10
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Hawaii
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable,
unless
specifically
included as
covered in
policy
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Statute
Authority for Prevailing Approach
HAW. REV. STAT. § 431:10-240 (1992)
(stating that coverage under any policy of
insurance issued in this State shall not be
construed to provide coverage for punitive
or exemplary damages unless specifically
included).
CIM Ins. Corp. v. Midpac Auto Center, Inc.,
108 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1102 (D. Hawaii
2000) (noting insurance policies issued in
Hawaii “shall not be construed to provide
coverage for punitive or exemplary damages
unless specifically included”).
Idaho
Insurable
Policy provides
coverage under
“all sums”/
“damages”
language; no
exclusion for
punitives
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Great Southwest Fire Ins.
Co. v. H.V. Corp., 658 P.2d 337, 340–41
(Haw. Ct. App. 1984) (stating policy
specifically excludes coverage for punitive
damages).
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Takeda, 243 F. Supp.2d
1100, 1109 (D. Hawaii 2003) (granting
insurer‟s motion for summary judgment as to
indemnification for punitive damages because
the policy didn‟t specifically include coverage
for punitive damages).
Abbie Uriguen Oldsmobile Buick, Inc. v. U.
S. Fire Ins. Co., 511 P.2d 783, 789 (Idaho
1973) (holding automobile policy which
does not specifically exclude coverage for
liability for punitive damages covers such
damages; such coverage is not contrary to
public policy).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
11
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Illinois
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable,
except for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Public policy
against coverage
for intentional acts
Beaver v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 420 N.E.2d
1058, 1061 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (stating public
policy prohibits coverage for punitive
damages arising from insured‟s own
misconduct, but it is not against public policy
for an employer to insure against punitive
damages arising from vicarious liability).
Wausau Ins. Co. v. Valspar Corp., 594 F.
Supp. 269, 273 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (recognizing
directly assessed punitive damages are not
insurable).
Scott v. Instant Parking, Inc., 245 N.E.2d 124,
126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969) (noting that coverage
for punitive damages imposed for vicarious
liability is not against public policy).
U.S. Fidelity & Gaur. Co. v. Open Sesame
Child Care Center, 819 F. Supp. 756, 761
(N.D. Ill. 1993) (stating vicariously assessed
punitives are insurable).
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. David Agency Ins., Inc.,
327 F. Supp. 2d 922, 928 (N.D. Ill 2004)
(noting public policy prohibits insuring
against liability for punitive damages arising
out of an insured‟s misconduct).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Mortenson v. Nat’l Union
Fire Ins. Co., 249 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir.
2001) (concluding that Illinois public policy
forbids insuring against criminal fines or
punitive damages; here the federal court
applied Illinois law).
Contrary Authority: Int’l Surplus Lines Ins.
Co. v. Pioneer Life Ins. Co., 568 N.E.2d 9, 17
(Ill. Ct. App. 1990) (stating that a “more
fundamental policy of Illinois is that when
payment of a premium is made by an insured
and accepted by the insurance company and
coverage is promised in return therefore, the
insurer should be required to fulfill its
contractual obligations”); see also Strzelczyk
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 497 N.E.2d
1170, 1173 (Ill. 1986) (citing Glidden v.
Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass’n, 312 N.E.2d 247,
249–50 (Ill. 1974)); Kaufmann v. Econ. Fire
& Cas. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1150, 1153 (Ill.
1979) (citing Glidden, 312 N.E.2d at 249–50).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
12
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable,
except for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Public policy
against coverage
for intentional acts
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ramada
Hotel Operating Co., 852 F.2d 298, 299 n.2
(7th Cir. 1988) (citing Norfolk & Western
Ry. Co. v. Hartford, 420 F.Supp. 92, 96–97
(1976)) (stating Indiana law allows
coverage for punitive damages in cases of
vicarious liability, but public policy
prohibits coverage for direct liability).
Related decisions: Grant v. North River Ins.
Co., 453 F.Supp. 1361, 1363, 1370–71 (N.D.
Ind. 1978) (holding insurance policy language
provides coverage for punitives; not against
public policy to cover punitive damages
imposed for vicarious liability).
Home Insurance Co. v. Neilsen, 332 N.E.2d
240, 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (noting
coverage is excluded for an intentional act
where injury was intended).
Stevenson v. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co., 672
N.E.2d 467, 474 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (stating
public policy prohibits insurability of punitive
damages based upon the insured‟s own
wrongful acts, but public policy allows
insurability based upon vicarious liability).
Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Hartford, 420
F.Supp. 92, 96–97 (N.D. Ind. 1976) (same as
Grant, supra).
Shuamber v. Henderson, 563 N.E.2d 1314,
1317–18 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing
punitive damages are not recoverable under
Indiana‟s underinsured motorist statute).
See generally Crabtree v. Estate of Crabtree,
837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005) (noting that
Indiana generally does not allow punitive
damages to be insured against).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
13
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Iowa
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Policy language
allows coverage,
public policy does
not preclude
coverage
Skyline Harvestore Sys.,Inc. v. Centennial
Ins. Co., 331 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Iowa 1983)
(noting “all sums”/“damages” language
encompasses coverage for punitives; public
policy does not preclude coverage).
Related Decision: Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance
Co. v. Jungling, 654 N.W.2d 530, 537–38
(Iowa 2002) (discussing public policy
rationales for and against insurability of
punitive damages).
City of Cedar Rapids v. Northwestern Nat’l
Ins. Co., 304 N.W.2d 228, 230 (Iowa 1981)
(stating that policy language includes
coverage and it is not against public policy).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
14
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable if
arising from
vicarious
liability; not
insurable in
other situations
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy as
expressed in
statute
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v.
American Red Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d
1281, 1290 (Kan. 1997) (noting that public
policy prohibits insuring against punitive
damages unless they arise from vicarious
liability).
*Smith v. Merch. Mut. Bonding Co., 507
P.2d 189, 196 (Kan. 1973) (stating directly
assessed punitive damages are not
insurable).
KAN. STAT. ANN. § 40-2, 115 (1988)
(stating it is not against public policy to
insure against punitive damages arising
from vicarious liability).
*Note: this pre-dates § 40-2, 115.
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Contrary Authority: St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins.
Co. v. Int’l Playtex, Inc., 777 P.2d 1259, 1266
(Kan. 1989) (stating Kansas public policy
prohibits coverage for punitive damages prior to
KAN. STAT. ANN. § 40-2, 115 (eff. 4/26/84)).
S. American Ins. Co. v. Gabbert-Jones, Inc., 769
P.2d 1194, 1197–98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989)
(noting that while coverage for punitive
damages is within the coverage of a commercial
umbrella liability policy, which covers “all
sums” insured is legally obligated to pay as
damages, public policy prohibited insurability of
punitive damages at the time the policy was
issued).
Hartford Accid. & Indem. Co. v. American Red
Ball Transit Co., 938 P.2d 1281, 1293 (Kan.
1997) (noting that KAN. STAT. ANN. § 40-2, 115
is inapplicable where punitive damages are
awarded under complicity rule set forth in KAN.
STAT. ANN. § 60-3701(d)(1)).
Pugh v. Munguia, 146 P.3d 1108, 1111–12
(Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (discussing public policy
rationales regarding insurability of punitive
damages); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
995 P.2d 890, 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
15
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable,
except possibly
when arising
from intentional
wrong
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Continental Ins. Cos. v. Hancock, 507
S.W.2d 146, 152 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973)
(stating it is not against public policy to
insure against punitive damages arising
from grossly negligent act, as opposed to
those arising from intentional conduct).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Ky. Cent. Ins. Co. v.
Schneider, 15 S.W.3d 373, 376 (Ky. 2000)
(holding that KY. REV. STAT. § 304.020020(1) “does not require a liability insurer to
provide UM coverage for punitive damages”).
Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Hornback, 711
S.W.2d 844, 846 (Ky. 1986) (Vance, J.,
concurring) (noting “Kentucky law allows
insurance coverage to protect against
punitive damages”).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
16
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Louisiana
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Statutue; punitive
damages include a
compensatory
component
Sharp v. Daigre, 545 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (La. Ct. App.
1989) (recognizing public policy does not preclude
punitive damages recoverable under UIM policy); see
also Pike v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 796 So. 2d
696, 699 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
Related Decisions: Pietsch v. Farmer, 957 So. 2d
315, 317 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (stating that “in the
absence of exclusionary language to the contrary,
insurers are obligated to pay exemplary damages
within their policy limits”) (emphasis in original).
Louviere v. Byers, 526 So. 2d 1253, 1257 (La. Ct.
App. 1988) (stating there is no public policy
prohibition against insuring punitives awarded
pursuant to a statute authorizing punitive damages to
be assessed against drunk drivers).
Fortier v. Hamblin, 610 So. 2d 897, 900 (La. Ct.
App. 1992) (noting punitive damages exclusion
doesn‟t conflict with compensatory purpose of
uninsured motorist statute).
Swindle v. Haughton Wood Co., Inc., 458 So. 2d 992
(La. Ct. App. 1984) (quoting McBride v. Lyles, 303
So.2d 795, 799 (1974)) (noting “public policy does
not forbid one from insuring against the intentional
acts of another for which he may be vicariously
liable”).
Fagot v. Ciravola, 445 F. Supp. 342, 345 (E.D. La.
1978) (stating to the extent Louisiana law permits
damage awards which other states would term
punitive, “Louisiana has often relied on what may be
viewed as the compensatory nature of punitive
damages”).
Lanris v. Parker, 635 So. 2d 442, 445 (La. Ct. App.
1994) (noting an insurer may be obligated to its
insured for exemplary damages under the insurance
contract).
Creech v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 516 So. 2d 1168,
1174 (La. Ct. App. 1987) (noting public policy does
not prohibit insurance coverage for vicariously
imposed exemplary damages); see also Citgo
Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc., 690 So. 2d 154, 166
(La. Ct. App. 1997).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Baltzar v. Williams, 254 So. 2d 470, 472 (La. Ct.
App. 1971) (holding public policy prohibits coverage
for punitive damages assessed for voluntary and
intentional wrongful acts).
Vallier v. Oilfield Construction Co., Inc., 483 So. 2d
212, 219 (La. Ct. App. 1986) (same as
Baltzar,supra).
LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 2315.4 (1984); 3542
(1992); 3546 (1992); 3547 (1992) (stating generally,
under conflict of laws statute, Louisiana courts may
not award punitive damages unless authorized by the
laws of another jurisdiction whose laws are
applicable).
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §22:1406(D)(1)(a)(i)
redesignated as 22:680(D)(1)(a)(i) (2003) (stating the
coverage provided under this [UIM] Subsection may
exclude coverage for punitive or exemplary damages
by the terms of the policy or contract).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
17
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Maine
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable,
but may be
subject to
change
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language
and public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Braley v. Berkshire Mut. Ins. Co., 440 A.2d
359, 363 (Me. 1982) (stating UIM policy
does not provide coverage for punitive
damages and Maine public policy prohibits
insuring against punitive damages).
Contrary Authority: Concord Gen. Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Hills, 345 F. Supp. 1090, 1095 (D. Me.
1972) (noting “all sums/damages” language
includes coverage for punitive damages based
upon vicarious liability; however, this
decision does not cite Maine law).
Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1360 n.20
(Me. 1985) (noting that issues, which were
not raised, remain open for future
consideration including whether one can
insure against the assessment of punitive
damages; thus, while the court previously
held punitive damages non-insurable in
Braley, this may be subject to change).
Maryland
Insurable
Policy language;
coverage not
prohibited by
public policy
First Nat’l Bank of St. Mary’s v. Fidelity &
Deposit Co., 389 A.2d 359, 367 (Md. 1978)
(holding public policy does not prohibit
coverage for punitive damages imposed for
bank‟s liability in a malicious prosecution
action).
Related Decision: Bailer v. Erie Ins. Co., 687
A.2d 1375, 1385 (Md. Ct. App. 1995) (citing
First Nat’l Bank of St. Mary’s v. Fidelity &
Deposit Co., 389 A.2d 359, 367 (1978))
(noting that it is not contrary to public policy
to insure against punitive damages awarded in
civil action for malicious prosecution).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
18
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Massachusetts
Non-insurable
Michigan
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No public policy
prohibition to
coverage
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Santos v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 556
N.E.2d 983, 990, 991 n.17 (Mass. 1990)
(stating no coverage for punitive damages
under an UIM policy or the Massachusetts
underinsured statute; notwithstanding, the
court did not address the broader issue of
whether a tortfeasor‟s insurer may be
obligated to pay for punitive damages).
Related Decision: Schiller v. Strangis, 540 F.
Supp. 605, 624 (D. Mass. 1982) (noting
punitive damages are not recoverable unless
authorized by statute).
Meijer, Inc. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 826
F.Supp. 241, 247 (W.D. Mich. 1993) aff’d,
61 F.3d 903 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Ford
Motor Co. v. Northbrook Ins. Co., 838 F.2d
829, 835 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding CGL
policy covered punitive damage award and
that there is no public policy prohibition
against the insurability of punitive
damages).
Related Decisions: McFadden v. Tate, 85
N.W.2d 181, 183 (Mich. 1957) (stating
exemplary damages are available to
compensate victim, but not to punish
wrongdoer); see also Peisner v. Detroit Free
Press, Inc., 304 N.W.2d 814, 817 (Mich. Ct.
App. 1981); Wise v. Daniel, 190 N.W. 746,
747 (Mich. 1922).
Ford Motor Co. v. Northbrook Ins. Co., 838
Wielinga v. American Way Life Ins. Co.,
F.2d 829, 831, 835 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating
473 N.W.2d 730, 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) excess policy, which excluded coverage for
(noting that insurers must clearly express
punitive damages except where underlying
coverage limitations and any failure to do so insurance provided such coverage, was
is construed against the insurer in favor of
required to cover punitive damages where
finding coverage under the policy).
insured was self-insured below the excess
policy).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
19
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable
unless for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Insurability of
punitive damages
against public
policy, except for
vicarious liability
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Diocese of Winona v. Interstate Fire, 841
F.Supp. 894, 897 (D. Minn. 1992) (recognizing
punitive award in sexual molestation case was
“truly punitive” and thus not insurable).
Rosenbloom v. Flygare, 501 N.W.2d 597, 602
(Minn. 1993) (noting directly assessed puntives
are not insurable).
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 487, 492–93 (8th Cir.
1990) (stating no product liability coverage
under Minnesota law for punitives awarded in
tire blowout action; even if vicarious liability
exception existed in Minnesota, it would not
apply to case).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Contrary Authority: Wojciak v. Northern
Package Corp., 310 N.W.2d 675, 680–81
(Minn. 1981) (holding insurance coverage
valid for worker‟s comp. statute treble
damage penalty).
Related Decision: Perl v. St. Paul Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 345 N.W.2d 209, 216 (Minn.
1984) (stating no coverage under malpractice
policy for attorney fee forfeiture; however the
Minn. Supreme Court cautiously discussed
the vicarious liability exception).
Caspersen v. Webber, 213 N.W.2d 327, 329,
331 (Minn. 1973) (noting no coverage under
homeowner‟s policy for punitive damages
arising from assault; policy covered “all sums
[the insured] is legally obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily injury;” punitives are
awarded as deterrent and not because of bodily
injury, hence no coverage).
Lake Cable Partners v. Interstate Power Co.,
563 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
(stating punitive damages insurable only by
those who are vicariously liable).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
20
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Mississippi
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable in
most cases
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No public policy
prohibition to
coverage
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Anthony v. Frith, 394 So. 2d 867, 868
(Miss. 1981) (recognizing that it is not
against public policy to require insurers to
pay punitive damages).
Old Sec. Cas.Ins. Co. v. Clemmer, 455 So.
2d 781, 783 (Miss. 1984) (citing Anthony v.
Frith, 394 So.2d 867, 868 (stating an award
of punitive damages against liability
insurance company is not against public
policy).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. v. Daughdrill, 474 So. 2d 1048, 1054
(Miss. 1985) (noting that despite the general
rule, uninsured motor vehicle statute did not
mandate recovery of punitive damages).
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., v. Dale, 914 So. 2d 698,
703 (Miss. 2005) (stating Mississippi law
does not prevent insurers from excluding
punitive damage coverage in auto liability
policies).
James W. Sessums Timber Co., Inc. v.
McDaniel, 635 So. 2d 875, 883 (Miss.
1994) (noting directly assessed punitive
damages are insurable).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
21
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable
unless for
vicarious
liability or
governmental
entities
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy; not
for covered
damages
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Crull v. Gleb, 382 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1964) (stating public policy prohibits
coverage for punitive damages; punitives
not BI or PD).
DeShong v. Mid-States Adjustment, Inc.,
876 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
(noting policy that covered amounts insured
legally obligated to pay to “compensate
others for loss” did not extend to punitive
damages).
Schnuck Mkts, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins.
Co., 652 S.W.2d 206, 212 (Mo. Ct. App.
1983) (recognizing no coverage for punitive
damages where policy only intended to
cover compensation for bodily injury).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Welfare Fin. Co., 75 F.2d 58 (8th Cir. 1934)
(noting insurer may cover vicariouslyassessed punitive damages where claim was
based on negligence and where there was no
volition on the part of the master in the
commission of the wrongful act).
Colson v. Lloyd’s of London, 435 S.W.2d 42,
47 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968) (stating punitive
damages covered by false imprisonment
policy issued to Missouri association of law
enforcement officers).
Union L.P. Gas Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Surplus
Lines Ins. Co., 869 F.2d 1109, 1111 (8th
Cir. 1989) (same as Schnuck, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
22
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Montana
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable
unless expressly
included in
policy
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
State statute
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
MONT. CODE ANN. § 33-15-317 (1989)
(stating insurance coverage does not extend
to punitive or exemplary damages unless
expressly included by the contract of
insurance).
Contrary Authority: Smith v. State Farm Ins.
Co., 870 P.2d 74, 76 (Mont. 1994) (stating
public policy prohibits indemnifying willful
misconduct).
Fitzgerald v. W. Fire Ins. Co., 679 P.2d 790,
792 (Mont. 1984) (noting “all sums”
language in automobile policy ambiguous,
and public policy does not prohibit
insurability of punitive damages).
First Bank (N.A.) Billings v. Transamerica
Ins. Co., 679 P.2d 1217, 1218 (Mont. 1984)
(same as Fitzgerald, supra).
Nebraska
Punitive
damages not
recognized
State common law
Riewe v. McCormick, 9 N.W. 88, 89 (Neb.
1881) (stating constitutional guarantees of
the rights of private property violated if
courts sanction its practical confiscation
under the name of exemplary or punitive
damages).
Miller v. Kingsley, 230 N.W.2d 472, 474
(Neb. 1975) (noting fundamental rule of law
in Nebraska that punitive, vindictive or
exemplary damages are not allowed).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
23
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Nevada
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable unless
imposed for
wrongful act
committed with
intent to injure
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
NEV. REV. STAT. § 681A.095 (1995)
(stating “[a]n insurer may insure against
legal liability for exemplary or punitive
damages that do not arise from a wrongful
act of the insured committed with the intent
to cause injury to another”).
Related Decisions: New Hampshire Ins. Co. v.
Gruhn, 670 P.2d 941, 942 (Nev. 1983)
(noting the phrase “pay all damages suffered”
contained in surety bond does not include
punitive damages, as punitive damages are
not “suffered”).
Contrary Authority: Siggelkow v. Phoenix Ins.
Co., 846 P.2d 303, 305 (Nev. 1993) (stating
only compensatory damages were covered
under an uninsured motorist policy, and
therefore public policy prevented and insured
from collecting punitive damages; however,
this pre-dates the statute).
Lombardi v. Md. Cas. Co, 894 F. Supp. 369,
372 (D.C. Nev. 1995) (recognizing CGL
insurance coverage of an award of punitive
damages is void as contrary to public policy;
however, the district court relied on
Siggelkow, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
24
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
New
Hampshire
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable; in
NH punitive
damages are
considered an
element of
compensatory
damages
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No policy
exclusion
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
American Home Assurance Co. v. Fish, 451
A.2d 358, 360 (N.H. 1982) (stating a policy
without a specific punitive damages
exclusion covers any award of exemplary or
punitive damages; however, another policy
which specifically excluded “fines or
penalties” was not liable to provide
coverage for exemplary or punitive
damages).
Related Decisions: Munson v. Raudonis, 387
A.2d 1174, 1177 (N.H. 1978) (stating the law
does not allow a defendant to be punished by
punitive or exemplary damages, but
compensatory damages may reflect
aggravating circumstances).
Weeks v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
673 A.2d 772, 775 (N.H. 1996) (noting that
civil penalties were covered by policy even
though penal in nature because the policy
did not contain an express exclusion).
Aubert v. Aubert, 529 A.2d 909, 915 (N.H.
1987) (allowing award of “liberal
compensatory damages” in a case involving
aggravating circumstances to compensate
the plaintiff, but not for the purpose of
punishment).
Vratsenes v. N.H. Auto, Inc., 289 A.2d 66, 68
(N.H. 1972) (noting that no damages are to be
awarded as a punishment; however, when an
act involved is wanton, malicious or
oppressive, compensatory damages may
reflect aggravating circumstances).
N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 507:16 (2004)
(stating “[n]o punitive damages shall be
awarded in any action, unless otherwise
provided by statute”).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
25
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable;
possibly
covered if for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
LoRocco v. N.J. Mfrs. Indem. Ins. Co., 197
A.2d 591, 596 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1964) (noting it is contrary to public policy
for automobile policy to provide coverage
for punitive damages).
Malanga v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co., 146 A.2d
105, 110 (N.J. 1958) (stating coverage for
vicariously imposed punitive damages is
proper; if insurer wished to exclude
vicarious imposition of punitive damages,
exclusion could have been in policy).
Variety Farms, Inc. v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.,
410 A.2d 696, 703 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. 1980) (holding public policy does not
permit a tortfeasor to shift the burden of
punitive damages to liability insurer).
Owens-Ill., Inc. v. United Ins. Co., 625 A.2d
1, 23 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)
(stating public policy prohibits shifting the
burden of punitive damages to an insurer).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Loigman v. Mass. Bay
Ins. Co., 561 A.2d 642, 645–46 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 1989) (holding that Rule 11
sanctions imposed against insured attorney
were punitive and thus uninsurable under
homeowner policy‟s “personal injury”
provision).
Johnson & Johnson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
667 A.2d 1087, 1092 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. 1995) (noting dicta indicates that even
vicarious liability claims would not be
covered; declined to extend Malanga stating
that Malanga did not purport to address the
issue of whether New Jersey‟s public policy
precludes coverage for punitive damage
liability and failed to raise the distinction
between compensatory and punitive
damages).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
26
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
New Mexico
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No public policy
against such
coverage; no
policy exclusion
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Wolff v. Gen. Cas. Co. of America, 361 P.2d
330, 335 (N.M. 1961) (recognizing public
policy does not prohibit coverage of
punitive damages under liability policy; the
court also noted that policy did not contain
any specific punitive exclusion).
Related Decisions: Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins.
Co., 803 P.2d 664, 665–66 (N.M. 1990)
(stating punitive damages are a part of
potential award under uninsured motorists
statute and cannot be contracted away); see
Manzanares v. Allstate Ins. Co., 141 P.3d
1281, 1282 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006); N.M.
STAT. ANN. § 66-5-301(A) (1978).
Baker v. Armstrong, 744 P.2d 170, 173
(N.M. 1987) (stating punitive damage
coverage is not prohibited where insuring
clause does not forewarn the insured that
such was to be the intent; such coverage is
not against public policy).
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Progressive
Specialty Ins. Co., 35 P.3d 309, 312 (N.M. Ct.
App. 2001) (noting the Mandatory Financial
Responsibility Act does not require
automobile liability coverage for punitive
damages; thus an exclusion of liability
coverage for punitive damages is valid).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
27
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
New York
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Soto v. State Farm Ins. Co., 635 N.E.2d
1222, 1224 (N.Y. 1994) (holding punitive
damages are not insurable under New
York‟s public policy).
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Village
of Hempstead, 397 N.E.2d 737, 744 (N.Y.
1979) (stating directly assessed punitive
damages are not insurable).
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ambassador
Group, Inc., 556 N.Y.S.2d 549, 553 (N.Y.
App. Div. 1990) (stating punitive damages
are not insurable).
Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goldfarb, 425
N.E. 2d 810, 814 (N.Y. 1981) (noting
punitive damages are not insurable under
any circumstances, even if the insurer
charged a premium for such coverage).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson
Lehman Hutton, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1065, 1070
(N.Y. 1994) (noting that only when a statute
allowing indemnification awards damages
that are wholly punitive, and not
compensatory, are they precluded by New
York policy; also, vicariously assessed
punitive damages are not insurable); see also
Biondi v. Beekman Hill House Apartment
Corp., 709 N.Y.S.2d 861, 863 (N.Y. 2000);
*Pelton v. 77 Park Ave. Condo., 825
N.Y.S.2d 28, 35 n.3 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
*Note: pagination is subject to change.
Massena v. Healthcare Underwriters Mut.
Ins. Co., 724 N.Y.S.2d 107, 112 (N.Y. App.
Div. 2001) (recognizing public policy
precludes liability insurance coverage of
punitive damages).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
28
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
North
Carolina
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language
broad enough to
include punitive
damages; no
exclusion
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Mazza v. Medial Mut. Ins. Co. of N.C., 319
S.E.2d 217, 222–23 (N.C. 1984) (stating
“all sums” language in physicians‟ liability
policy is broad enough to encompass
punitive damages, there is no public policy
prohibition against insuring against punitive
damages, and the court emphasized the fact
that insurer could have included a punitive
damage exclusion in the policy, but failed to
do so).
Contrary Authority: Cavin’s, Inc. v. Atl. Mut.
Ins. Co., 220 S.E.2d 403, 408 (N.C. Ct. App.
1975) (stating policy does not provide
coverage for punitive damages).
Collins & Aikman Corp. v. Hartford
Accident & Indem. Co., 436 S.E.2d 243,
246 (N.C. 1993) (noting umbrella policy
covered punitive damages where there was
no specific exclusion and “penalty”
exclusion was ambiguous).
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 237
S.E.2d 341, 345 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977) (same
as Cavin’s, supra).
Related Decision: Boyd v. Nationwide Mut.
Ins. Co., 424 S.E.2d 168, 172 (N.C. Ct. App.
1993) (recognizing vicariously assessed
punitive damages are insurable).
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke Univ.,
849 F.2d 133, 136 (4th Cir. 1988)
(Applying N.C. law) (stating absent clear
public policy, insurance contract covering
punitive damages for intentional conduct is
enforceable).
New S. Ins. Co. v. Kidd, 443 S.E.2d 85, 88
(N.C. Ct. App. 1994) (noting “an insurance
policy must explicitly state that it does not
provide coverage for punitive damages”).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
29
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Punitive
damages
uninsurable if
imposed for
willful acts;
possible
coverage for
reckless acts;
apparently
coverage for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
State statute
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
N.D. CENT. CODE § 26.1-32-04 (1985)
(stating that while an insurer is not liable for
a loss caused by the willful act of the
insured, the insurer is not exonerated by the
negligence of the insured, the insured‟s
agents, or others).
Related Decision: Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Kinsey,
499 N.W.2d 574, 576–77 (N.D. 1993) (noting
attorney malpractice policy had punitive
damage exclusion, but explicitly covered
punitive damages by endorsement, thus policy
provided coverage for punitive damages
incurred as a result of insured‟s intentional
fraud and deceit despite statute; however,
insurer had recourse against insured because
insurability for intentional/willful acts is void
under N.D. statute).
Hins v. Heer, 259 N.W.2d 38, 40 (N.D.
1977) (interpreting statute to mean the
same; noting that directly assessed punitive
damages arising out of intentional conduct
are not insurable).
Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Heim, 559 N.W.2d
846, 851 (N.D. 1997) (stating public policy
prohibits insurance coverage for intentional
acts).
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Horner, 583 N.W.2d
804, 807 (N.D. 1998) (citing and following
Nodak, supra).
Capitol Indem. Corp. v. Evolution, Inc., 293
F.Supp.2d 1067, 1074 (D.N.D. 2003)
(recognizing all insurance policy provisions
that allow coverage for intentional acts of
the insured are void as against public
policy).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
30
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Non-insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy; state
statute
Authority for Prevailing Approach
OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3937.182(B)
(2001) (stating no policy of motor vehicle
insurance may provide coverage for
punitive or exemplary damages).
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blevins, 551
N.E.2d 955, 959 (Ohio 1990) (stating absent
specific contract language in uninsured
motorist policy, coverage for punitive
damages will not be presumed).
Wedge Products, Inc. v. Hartford Equity
Sales, 509 N.E.2d 74, 76 (Ohio 1987)
(recognizing public policy is contrary to
insurance against intentional torts); see
Britton v. Smythe, 743 N.E.2d 960, 969
(Ohio Ct. App. 200).
Casey v. Calhoun, 531 N.E.2d 1348, 1351
(Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (noting public policy
prohibits coverage for punitive damages).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Brookridge Party Ctr.,
Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc. 468 N.E.2d 63, 69
(Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (noting lease indemnity
provision did not encompass punitive
damages for highly reprehensible conduct).
Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Parkview
Manor, No. 84-096, 1985 WL 7176, at *2
(Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 4, 1985) (stating
defendant‟s policy did provide coverage to the
insured for punitive damages; here the
situation involved vicarious liability).
Corinthian v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 758
N.E.2d 218, 221–23 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
(noting § 3937.182 does not preclude insuring
against statutory punitive damages awarded
without any finding of malice, intent, or ill
will).
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Shane & Shane
Co., 605 N.E.2d 1325, 1330 (Ohio Ct. App.
1992) (stating it is against public policy to
obtain insurance coverage for punitive
damages awarded in a defamation action).
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. S-W
Industries, Inc., 39 F.3d 1324, 1329 (6th
Cir. 1994) (same as Casey, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
31
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable only
if imposed for
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language
could encompass
coverage; public
policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mut.
Liab. Ins. Co., 621 P.2d 1155, 1160 (Okla.
1980) (noting “all sums” language in
personal liability policy is broad enough to
cover punitive damages, and while public
policy prohibits insured from passing off
liability to insurer, coverage is proper for
vicariously imposed punitive damages).
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Craig, 771 P.2d
212, 215 (Okla. 1989) (stating directly
assessed punitive damages are not
insurable).
Magnum Foods v. Continental Cas. Co., 36
F.3d 1491, 1497 (10th Cir. 1994)
(recognizing public policy prohibits
coverage except when vicariously imposed).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
32
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Insurable for
non-intentional
conduct
Ambiguous
coverage grant; no
exclusion; no
public policy
prohibition
Harrell v. Travelers Indem. Co., 567 P.2d 1013,
1021 (Or. 1977) (stating public policy does not
prohibit coverage for punitives under
comprehensive automobile liability policy; “all
sums” language is ambiguous, and must be
construed against insurer; court also noted that
punitive damage exclusion could have been
included in policy; Cf. Isenhart below by saying
that this claim did not involve an intentionally
inflicted injury, but conduct was reckless).
Related Decision: Mut. Of Enumclaw Ins. Co.
v. Gutman, 21 P.3d 101, 106 (Or. Ct. App.
2001) (recognizing that it is against public
policy to insure against intentional conduct).
Isenhart v. General Cas. Co. of America, 377
P.2d 26, 28 (Or. 1962) (noting an insurance
contract clause purporting to indemnify the
insured for damages recovered against him as a
consequence of his intentional conduct in
inflicting injury upon another is unenforceable
by the insured on the ground that to permit
recovery would be against public policy).
Snyder v. Nelson, 564 P.2d 681, 684 (Or. 1977)
(stating public policy prohibits insurance
coverage for damages arising out of intentional
conduct).
Groshong v. Mut. Of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 923
P.2d 1280, 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)
(recognizing public policy precludes insurance
coverage for discrimination because such action
is intentional).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
33
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable only
if arising from
vicarious
liability
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Esmond v. Liscio, 224 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1966) (stating public policy does not
permit a person to be indemnified by
insurance for willful misconduct).
Related Decisions: Butterfield v. Giuntoli, 670
A.2d 646, 655 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (stating
public policy does not prohibit insurance
coverage for vicariously imposed punitive
damages).
Aetna v. Roe, 650 A.2d 94, 100 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1994) (same as Esmond, supra).
PennBank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 669 F. Supp. 122, 125–26 (W.D. Pa.
1987) (noting policy is ambiguous and
neither includes nor excludes coverage;
punitive damages are insurable for vicarious
liability although insured, in this particular
case, was not vicariously liable).
Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 494 A.2d
1088, 1096 (Pa. 1985) (noting directly
assessed punitive damages are not
insurable).
Rhode Island
Non-insurable
Public policy
Allen v. Simmons, 533 A.2d 541, 544 (R.I.
1987) (holding the burden of satisfying a
punitive-damage award should remain with
the wrongdoer).
Carey v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 189 F.3d
414, 419 (3rd Cir. 1999) (applying Penn. law,
a liability policy‟s exclusion for “fines” and
“penalties”, where those terms are undefined
in the policy, allows the insurer to deny
coverage for punitive damages).
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Callaghan, No. 3:CV-042246, 2006 WL 1626651, at *6 (M.D. Pa.
June 7, 2006) (public policy does not permit
defendants to shift the burden of punitive
damages to their insurer); see TIG Ins. Co. v.
Nobel Learning Cmtys, Inc., No. CIV.A. 014708, 2002 WL 1340332, at *15 (E.D. Pa.
June 18, 2002).
Related Decision: Morrell v. Lalonde, 120 A.
435, 438 (R.I. 1923) (noting that the
malpractice insurance policy extended
coverage for punitive damages).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
34
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
South
Carolina
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No exclusion;
policy language
broad enough to
cover punitives
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Carroway v. Johnson, 139 S.E.2d 908, 910
(S.C. 1965) (stating “all sums” language in
policy broad enough to cover liability for
punitive damages; no policy exclusion).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decision: Glen Falls Indem. Co. v.
Atlantic Building Corp., 199 F.2d 60, 63 (4th
Cir. 1952) (noting vicariously assessed
punitive damages are insurable).
S.C. State Budget & Control Board v. Price,
403 S.E.2d 643, 648 (S.C. 1991) (same as
Carroway, supra).
South Dakota
Non-insurable
although not
clearly decided
Public policy; not
within coverage
grant
Ft. Pierre v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 463
N.W.2d 845, 848–49 (S.D. 1990) (stating
public policy prohibits recovery of punitive
damages for one‟s own intentional
wrongdoing under public official‟s E&O
policy).
Related Decisions: Dairyland Ins. Co. v.
Wyant, 474 N.W.2d 514, 515–16 (S.D. 1991)
(stating auto policy specifically listed
insurance benefits w/o including coverage of
punitive damages, thus punitives were not
covered; the court noted that the language in
Ft. Pierre could be considered dicta and that
the “application of this principle of public
policy to insurance contracts purporting to
extend coverage for punitive damages is best
left for a case where the question is squarely
presented”).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Engelman,
639 N.W.2d 192, 203 (S.D. 2002) (concurring
opinion) (citing Ft. Pierre, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
35
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Tennessee
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Insurable,
except when
arising from an
intentional
wrong
No public policy
prohibition; policy
language broad
enough to
encompass
punitive damages
Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.,
383 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tenn. 1964) (noting public
policy does not prohibit automobile
insurance coverage of punitive damages,
except when arising from injuries
intentionally inflicted; “all sums” language
is broad enough to encompass punitive
damage awards).
Related Decisions: Carr v. Ford, 833 S.W.2d
68, 70–71 (Tenn. 1992) (noting Uninsured
Motorist Coverage Statute [TENN. CODE
ANN. § 56-7-1201 (1999)] relieves insurance
carriers from having to insure for punitive
damages, but they may do so if they choose).
West v. Pratt, 871 S.W.2d 477, 480 (Tenn.
1994) (stating in the absence of a provision to
the contrary, an insurer must satisfy a
compensatory damage award, to the extent of
its limits, before paying any part of a punitive
damage award).
Richards Mfg. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 773
S.W.2d 916, 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)
(citing Lazenby, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
36
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Texas
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable in
some contexts.
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy.
Parties are free to
contract.
Authority for Prevailing Approach
The question of whether punitive damages are
insurable was certified by the Firth Circuit to the
Texas Supreme Court, which held in Fairfield Ins.
Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, L.P., 246 S.W.3d
653, (February 15, 2008) that: “Texas public
policy does not prohibit coverage under the type of
workers‟ compensation and employer‟s liability
insurance policy at issue in this case.” The court
stated: “without clear legislative intent to generally
prohibit or allow the insurance of exemplary
damages arising from gross negligence, we decline
to make a broad proclamation of public policy here
but instead offer some considerations applicable to
the analysis in other cases.” A two step analysis is
required: 1) whether the policy language covers
the damages; and 2) if coverage exists under the
policy, whether public policy prohibits or permits
coverage under the circumstances. Lower court
cases fall on both sides.
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Non-insurable Cases:
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 19 F. Supp.
2d 678, 681 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (coverage
provided by commercial automobile policy
for punitive damages for gross negligence was
void and unenforceable under Texas public
policy).
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Shaffer, 888
S.W.2d 146, 150 (Tex. App. 1994) (both
public policy and language of statutes prohibit
recovery of exemplary damages under
uninsured/underinsured motorist policy).
Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallgren, 477
S.W.2d 341, 342 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972) (stating
“all sums” language ambiguous and thus
encompasses punitive damages, no provision of
policy specifically excludes coverage; there is no
public policy prohibition against the insurability of
punitive damages).
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Admiral Co., 152
S.W.3d 172, 182–91 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004)
(professional medical liability policy for-profit
nursing home included coverage for punitive
damages).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
37
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Utah
Non-insurable
State statute
UTAH CODE ANN. § 31A-20-101 (1991)
(stating no insurer may insure or attempt to
insure against punitive damages).
Vermont
Insurable
Policy language;
no public policy
prohibition
State v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 404 A.2d 101,
105 (Vt. 1979) (stating “all sums” in general
liability policy means entire amount due a
plaintiff as damages pursuant to a legal
judgment or settlement regardless of how
characterized; public policy does not
preclude effect of contract terms).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
American Protection Ins. Co. v. McMahan,
562 A.2d 462, 467 (Vt. 1989) (recognizing
directly assessed punitive damages are
insurable).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
38
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Virginia
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable unless
liability arises
from intentional
act
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language;
no public policy
prohibition
Authority for Prevailing Approach
VA. CODE ANN. § 38.2-227 (1986) (stating
it is not against the public policy of the
Commonwealth for any person to purchase
insurance providing coverage for punitive
damages arising out of the death or injury of
any person as the result of negligence; no
coverage for punitive damage arising from
intentional acts); see Allstate Ins. Co v.
Wade, 579 S.E.2d 180, 184 (Va. 2003).
U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Aspen Building Corp.,
367 S.E.2d 478, 480 (Va. 1988) (noting
statute does not extend to punitive damages
incurred in property damage cases).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: Lerner v. Gen. Ins. Co.,
245 S.E.2d 249, 252 (Va. 1978) (noting
insurer required to defend claims for both
compensatory and punitive damages).
United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Webb, 369 S.E.2d
196, 199 (Va. 1988) (same as Lerner, supra).
Cf. Dalton v. Johnson, 129 S.E.2d 647, 651
(Va. 1963) (stating that Virginia does not
allow the vicarious imposition of punitive
damages).
Lipscombe v. Security Ins. Co., 189 S.E.2d
320, 324 (Va. 1972) (recognizing directly
assessed punitive damages are insurable).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
39
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Washington
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Punitive
damages are
insurable when
authorized by
statute
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Public policy
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
Co., 34 P.3d 809, 815 (Wash. 2001) (stating
“[w]e thus affirm the conclusion of the
Court of Appeals that punitive damages
coverage does not violate public policy in
this state”).
Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.,
726 P.2d 8, 23 (Wash. 1986) (noting
punitive damages are not allowed unless
expressly authorized by statute).
Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank of Tampa,
635 P.2d 441, 443 (Wash. 1981) (same as
Fisher, supra).
Washington
D.C.
Punitive
damages not
insurable
Public policy
Curry v. Giant Food Co., 522 A.2d 1283,
1290 (D.C. 1987) (allowing insurance
against punitive damages would defeat the
purpose of those damages).
Salus Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 478 A.2d
1067, 1071 (D.C. 1984) (noting insured
must be found guilty of intentional tort or
crime before insurer is relieved of any
liability).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
40
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
West Virginia
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable if
arising from
negligent or
reckless
conduct
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language;
no public policy
prohibition
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Hensley v. Erie Ins. Co., 283 S.E.2d 227,
233 (W. Va. 1981) (stating public policy
does not preclude insurance coverage for
punitive damages arising from gross,
reckless, or wanton negligence, and “all
sums” language is broad enough to
encompass punitive damages).
Related Decision: W. Va. Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Stanley, 602 S.E.2d 483, 491 (W. Va. 2004)
(noting exclusion of coverage for any fines,
penalties, or punitive damages was
unambiguous in personal umbrella liability
policy and therefore the insurer was not
responsible for punitive damages).
Perry v. Melton, 299 S.E.2d 8, 12 (W. Va.
1982) (same as Hensley, supra).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
41
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
Policy language;
no public policy
prohibition
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Brown v. Maxey, 369 N.W.2d 677, 686, 688
(Wis. 1985) (stating “all sums” language
broad enough to encompass punitive
damages and Wisconsin public policy does
not prohibit coverage).
Cieslewicz v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 267
N.W.2d 595, 597 (Wis. 1978) (noting “all
sums” language broad enough to encompass
statutorily imposed treble damages; note the
court only addresses statutory punitive
damages).
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Related Decisions: U.S. v. Thorson, 300 F.
Supp.2d 828, 834 (W.D. Wis. 2003) (noting
“Wisconsin does not prohibit the practice of
shifting punitives to an insurer”).
Harris v. County of Racine, 512 F. Supp.
1273, 1284 (E.D. Wis. 1981) (recognizing
public policy does not prohibit public officials
from insuring against all types of liability).
City of W. Allis v. Wis. Elec. Power Co., 635
N.W.2d 873, 888 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)
(recognizing liability insurance coverage for
punitive damages is not against public
policy).
Koehring Co. v. American Mut. Liability
Ins. Co., 564 F. Supp. 303 (E.D. Wis. 1983)
(stating directly assessed punitive damages
are insurable, but punitive damage are only
available when the defendant acts in
wanton, willful or reckless disregard of the
plaintiff‟s rights or interests).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
42
Is There Coverage for Punitive Damages Awards?
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Approach to
Coverage for
Punitive
Damage
Awards
Insurable
Basis for
Prevailing
Approach
No public policy
prohibition
Authority for Prevailing Approach
Contrary Authority/Related Decisions
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co.,
682 P.2d 975, 981 (Wyo. 1984) (stating it is
not against Wyoming public policy to cover
vicariously imposed punitive damages for
willful and wanton misconduct, or direct
liability for punitive damages imposed on
the basis of willful and wanton misconduct).
| Copyright ©2007
Please note that Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP is now known as Tressler LLP.
43
Offices
233 S. Wacker Drive
22nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
T: 312.627.4000
F: 312.627.1717
305 W. Briarcliff Road
Suite 201
Bolingbrook, IL 60440
T: 630.759.0800
F: 630.759.8504
One Penn Plaza
Suite 4701
New York, NY 10119
T: 646.833.0900
F: 646.833.0877
7744 Broad Street
Suite 1510
Newark, NJ 07102
T: 973.848.2900
F: 973.623.0405
18100 Von Karman Ave
Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
T: 949.336.1200
F: 949.752.0645
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: 310.203.4800
F: 310.203.4850