Changes to Punitive Damages Coming to Missouri
Last week, the Missouri legislature passed comprehensive changes to the assessment of punitive damages in Missouri. The bill, SB 591, outlines new pleading requirements, a clear burden of proof, and a heightened standard with regard to punitive damages. The bill will now head to the desk of Governor Mike Parson, who is expected to sign these new measures into law.
Procedure for Pleading Punitive Damages Altered
Under the new law, a claim for punitive damages can no longer be contained in the initial pleading. Instead, a claim for punitive damages may only be filed as a written motion with permission of the court. A written motion for punitive damages must be supported by evidence and may only be filed after the court determines that the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the standards for an award of punitive damages have been met. A motion for punitive damages must be supported by affidavits, exhibits, or discovery materials.
Burden of Proof and Standard for Liability Clarified
The new law also outlines a clear-cut burden of proof needed for an award of punitive damages. An award for punitive damages will only be allowed if a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intentionally harmed the plaintiff without just cause or acted with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others. The “clear and convincing” standard referenced is a heightened standard as compared to the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof ordinarily applied in civil cases.
Application of New Punitive Damages Law
The new law will apply to all cases filed on or after August 28, 2020. Only time will tell how these new changes will ultimately affect the litigation landscape in Missouri. However, the law certainly focuses on the true purpose of punitive damages—a remedy to punish a wrongdoer for egregious conduct in limited circumstances. For defendants, this new law will undoubtedly relieve some of the uncertainty and unpredictability of punitive damages and should significantly reduce a number of meritless claims for punitive damages sought in civil cases in the state.
- Now That Vaccine Distribution Has Begun, What Issues Do Employers Face?
- Immunity From Liability For Healthcare Facilities and Healthcare Professionals in the Continuing Battle Against the Covid-19 Pandemic
- A National Approach to Biometric Privacy
- Illinois Appellate Court Says the Learned Intermediary Doctrine Does Not Shield a Device Manufacturer from Liability When a Doctor is Deceived About a Device’s Prior Testing and Suitability
- Remote Jury Selection by Video Conferencing
- Illinois Appellate Court Eliminates Key Defense to BIPA Claims
- What is Amy Coney Barrett’s Record on Federal Preemption and What Does it Mean for Future SCOTUS Rulings in Drug and Medical Device Litigation?
- COVID Delivers Fraud to the Trucking Industry
- The Application of the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to Bar Legal Malpractice Claims Following Allegations of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- Prefabricated Construction Liability
- Professional Liability
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance & Reinsurance Litigation & Counseling
- Cyber Risk & Liability
- Toxic Tort
- Professional Development
- Medical Negligence & Healthcare Liability
- Social Media & Privacy
- Employment Litigation & Counseling
- Construction Litigation & Counseling
- Workers' Compensation
- Product Liability
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
- Discrimination, Harassment & Hostile Workplace Claims