Robert L. Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc.
2014 WI 21
Wis.2014Background
- Kimbles bought a lakefront lot in Door County and faced disputed access rights to County Highway M.
- First American title policy insured unmarketability and lack of access but did not insure a specific access route.
- First American advised the Kimbles that North Easement provided access, concealing issues with the Cofrin deed.
- Kimbles' sale fell through due to unresolved access dispute; Stevensons later pursued related claims and assignment of policy rights.
- Circuit court found coverage, bad faith, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages; on appeal, punitive damages were challenged as excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First American waived appellate review by late post-verdict motions | Stevensons contend First American failed timely post-verdict motion | First American argues timely motion; waiver should bar review | No waiver; appellate review available for excessiveness |
| Whether the punitive damages award is constitutionally excessive | Stevensons argue award justified by bad faith and determent | First American argues award excessive given conduct | Punitive award excessive; reduced on remand to $210,000 (total $239,738.49 including reduced compensatory) |
| How the ratio/disparity between punitive and compensatory damages should be evaluated | Case supports high ratio based on harm and potential damages | Fixed multipliers or ratios inappropriate; must be case-specific | Ratio deemed excessive; disparity adjusted to 3:1 for this case |
| Whether wealth of the defendant should influence the punitive award | Wealth factor supports larger award given finances | Wealth should not justify unconstitutional award; not decisive here | Wealth factor considered but did not justify large award; guided by Trinity factors |
| Whether assignment and coverage issues affected punitive damages analysis | Assignment to Stevensons valid and coverage established | Assignments/coverage would taint review if contested | Court assumed validity of assignment and coverage for purposes of review |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church & School-Freistadt v. Tower Ins. Co., 261 Wis. 2d 333 (Wis. 2003) (de novo review; six-factor framework for ex post punitive damages analysis; wealth considered)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1990) (three-part test for excessiveness: reprehensibility, ratio, deterrence/punishment)
- State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (reaffirms Gore framework and fixed limits on due-process review)
- TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1993) (potential harm can inform punitive damages in appropriate cases)
- Haslip, Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v., 499 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1991) (lay groundwork for punitive damages standards and wealth consideration)
- Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 209 Wis. 2d 605 (Wis. 1997) (Wisconsin guidance on punitive damages and gatekeeping)
- Strenke v. Hogner, 2005 WI App 194, 287 Wis. 2d 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (Wisconsin appellateBalancing factors in punitive damages)