Wilson Elser Punitive Damages Review

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Wilson Elser Punitive Damages Review WILSON ELSER PUNITIVE DAMAGES REVIEW 50-STATE SURVEY 2014 Edition 50-STATE SURVEY Punitive Damages Review 2014 Edition Wilson Elser makes this material available for general informational purposes only. The material is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice. Moreover, the material is not intended to and does not constitute a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship and you should not act upon it without first seeking legal counsel. This material is based on case law as of August 2013. Wilson Elser reserves the right to correct, change or update this material at any time without prior notice. Unsolicited emails and information sent to Wilson Elser do not create an attorney-client relationship with Wilson Elser, will not be considered confidential and may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy. Wilson Elser accepts clients only after completion of certain formal procedures. Wilson Elser, a full-service and leading defense litigation law firm (www.wilsonelser.com), serves its clients with nearly 800 attorneys in 25 offices in the United States and one in London, and through a network of affiliates in key regions globally. Founded in 1978, it ranks among the top 200 law firms identified by The American Lawyer and is included in the top 50 of The National Law Journal’s survey of the nation’s largest law firms. Wilson Elser serves a growing, loyal base of clients with innovative thinking and an in-depth understanding of their respective businesses. © 2014 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved. Contents STATE-BY-STATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ANALYSIS 2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES OVERVIEW 3 MONTANA 62 ALABAMA 8 NEBRASKA 64 ALASKA 10 NEVADA 65 ARIZONA 12 NEW HAMPSHIRE 68 ARKANSAS 14 NEW JERSEY 70 CALIFORNIA 16 NEW MEXICO 72 COLORADO 19 NEW YORK 74 CONNECTICUT 21 NORTH CAROLINA 77 DELAWARE 24 NORTH DAKOTA 79 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 26 OHIO 81 FLORIDA 28 OKLAHOMA 83 GEORGIA 31 OREGON 85 HAWAII 33 PENNSYLVANIA 87 IDAHO 34 PUERTO RICO 90 ILLINOIS 36 RHODE ISLAND 90 INDIANA 38 SOUTH CAROLINA 92 IOWA 40 SOUTH DAKOTA 95 KANSAS 42 TENNESSEE 97 KENTUCKY 44 TEXAS 99 LOUISIANA 46 UTAH 102 MAINE 48 VERMONT 103 MARYLAND 50 VIRGINIA 105 MASSACHUSETTS 52 WASHINGTON 107 MICHIGAN 55 WEST VIRGINIA 108 MINNESOTA 56 WISCONSIN 109 MISSISSIPPI 58 WYOMING 111 MISSOURI 61 OFFICE & AFFILIATES 114 50-STATE SURVEY STATE BY STATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ANALYSIS May Punitive Damages Are Punitive Damages State Standard Of Proof Be Awarded? Generally Insurable? Alabama Yes Yes Clear and convincing Alaska Yes Yes Clear and convincing Arizona Yes Yes Clear and convincing Arkansas Yes Yes Clear and convincing California Yes No Clear and convincing Colorado Yes No Beyond a reasonable doubt Connecticut Yes No Preponderance of evidence Delaware Yes Yes Clear and convincing District of Columbia Yes Undecided Clear and convincing Florida Yes No Clear and convincing Georgia Yes Yes Clear and convincing Hawaii Yes Yes Clear and convincing Idaho Yes Yes Clear and convincing Illinois Yes No Preponderance of evidence Indiana Yes Probably no Clear and convincing Iowa Yes Yes Clear and convincing Kansas Yes No Clear and convincing Kentucky Yes Yes Clear and convincing Louisiana Yes, but only by statute Yes Preponderance of evidence Maine Yes No Clear and convincing Maryland Yes Yes Clear and convincing Massachusetts Yes No Preponderance of evidence Michigan No Not applicable Not applicable Minnesota Yes No Clear and convincing Mississippi Yes Yes Clear and convincing Missouri Yes No Clear and convincing Montana Yes Yes Clear and convincing Nebraska No Not applicable Not applicable Nevada Yes Yes Clear and convincing New Hampshire Yes, but only by statute Yes Undetermined New Jersey Yes No Clear and convincing New Mexico Yes Yes Preponderance of evidence New York Yes No No clear standard North Carolina Yes Yes Clear and convincing North Dakota Yes Undetermined Clear and convincing Ohio Yes No Clear and convincing Oklahoma Yes No Clear and convincing Oregon Yes Yes Clear and convincing Pennsylvania Yes No Clear and convincing Puerto Rico No Not applicable Not applicable Rhode Island Yes No Clear and convincing South Carolina Yes Yes Clear and convincing South Dakota Yes, but only by statute Probably no Clear and convincing Tennessee Yes Yes Clear and convincing Texas Yes Possibly Clear and convincing Utah Yes No Clear and convincing Vermont Yes Yes Preponderance of evidence Virginia Yes Yes Preponderance of evidence Washington No Not applicable Not applicable West Virginia Yes Yes Preponderance of evidence Wisconsin Yes Yes Clear and convincing Wyoming Yes Yes No clear standard 2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES OVERVIEW Punitive Damages Overview The imposition of punitive damages continues to Some insurers will specifically exclude coverage for punitive be a hotly debated topic in the United States as to damages. Also, such damage awards may not be insured due whether and to the extent that punitive damages to various other policy provisions. A majority of the states (26) should be allowed and, should such recoveries be permit punitive damages to be insured. allowed, whether insurance can be purchased to protect exposure to a punitive damages award. With A minority of the states, however, do not permit punitive the exception of Michigan, Nebraska, Puerto Rico and damages to be insured. Notably, several large states housing Washington, most U.S. jurisdictions allow the imposition major U.S. business centers, such as California, New York, Illinois of punitive damages. A number of states, either and Pennsylvania, fall within this minority category. Some of these through statute or case law, place limitations on the jurisdictions will allow insurance for punitive damages due to ability to obtain such awards and/or the amounts that vicarious liability. For example, in Illinois and Florida, an employer are permitted to be awarded. The U.S. Supreme Court would be able to insure against vicarious liability of a punitive has further limited the amount of punitive damages that award assessed in consequence of an employee’s wrongful that can be awarded, finding that excessive punitive conduct. Further, some states that would not otherwise allow damages awards violate the Constitution’s Fifth and punitive damages to be insured have narrow exceptions allowing Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the taking of certain risks to be insured for punitive damages. For example, property without due process. in Pennsylvania, an insurer is permitted to provide punitive damages coverage to operators of downhill skiing areas, unless Punitive damages in the United States developed through the such punitive damages are awarded due to the intentional tort of common law as a means of punishing a defendant bad actor in the operator. cases where the civil award was deemed insufficient to punish the defendant. This extra level of punishment is generally reserved Many jurisdictions have found that insuring against punitive for situations when a defendant’s tortuous conduct is found to be damages is against the state’s public policy. Allowing punitive malicious, wanton, intentional, outrageous or reckless. damages to be insured arguably frustrates the purpose of an award meant to punish the wrongdoer for its bad conduct and Punitive damages are not to compensate for plaintiffs’ losses. In deter such conduct by that entity in the future. The “punishment” many jurisdictions, the level of punitive damages is considered may not be felt if an insurer is paying rather than the wrongdoer only after a jury has awarded the plaintiffs their compensatory or if the only consequence is paying higher insurance premiums damages. As such, punitive damages are a means of securing an in the future. award beyond plaintiffs’ compensatory losses. Insured entities increasingly have turned to the non-admitted As punitive damages awards are not considered to compensate and offshore markets to secure punitive damages coverage. a plaintiff for their losses, some states will share in plaintiffs’ These policies often will specifically insure punitive damages or, recovery of punitive damages through taxation of the punitive potentially, provide stand-alone punitive damages coverage. award and/or by statute requiring a percentage of the award These policies may specifically apply a favorable jurisdiction’s law be paid directly to a state agency. For example, in Georgia to the interpretation of the punitive damage coverage, regardless 75 percent of any punitive award is to be paid to the Georgia of the jurisdiction where the punitive award was rendered. State Treasury. When such coverage is sought, care must be taken to assure compliance with various states’ regulations impacting insurance Insurability of Punitive Damages coverage for punitive damages. Plaintiffs may threaten a punitive damages claim to force a greater settlement as the possible exposure is enhanced, especially in those cases where the compensatory damages are limited and the defendant’s conduct is questionable. An insured may be pressured to resolve a matter in situations where a punitive award is not insurable, rather than risk a potentially outsized uncovered award. 3 PUNITIVE DAMAGES OVERVIEW Insured entities that operate in multiple jurisdictions may be 1. Whether the harm was physical as opposed to economic presented with a punitive award in a jurisdiction that does not permit punitive damages to be insured and an insurance policy 2. Whether the defendant’s conduct evinced an indifference to that provides such coverage. In these situations, both the insurer or reckless disregard of the health or safety of others and insured may be concerned as to how the policy should 3. Whether the plaintiff was financially vulnerable be applied. Generally, the insured will want the coverage, but the insurer may be concerned with paying proceeds that are 4. Whether the conduct involved repeated actions or was an prohibited by law. isolated incident The availability of punitive damages in each state as well as 5. Whether the harm was the result of intentional malice, each state’s determination of the insurability of punitive damage trickery or deceit, or was a mere accident.
Recommended publications
  • Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: a Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union
    PROTECTING WOMEN FROM THE NEW CRIME OF STALKING: A COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION DAPHNE PROJECT 05-1/125/W PROTECTING WOMEN FROM THE NEW CRIME OF STALKING: A COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION FINAL REPORT EXECUTED BY UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA MODENA GROUP ON STALKING IN COOPERATION WITH University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Psychology (The Netherlands) Catholic University of Leuven, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology (Belgium) Barnet, Enfield & Haringey, Mental Health Nhs Trust, North London Forensic Service (UK) University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security (Slovenia) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Department de Ciència Politica i de Dret Pùblic (Spain) National Bureau of Investigation of Vantaa, Süomi (Finland) Technical University of Darmstadt, Centre of Forensic Psychology (Germany) FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE DAPHNE II PROGRAMME EUROPEAN COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE GENERAL JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS APRIL 2007 ii This study is the result of a European project supported by the European Commission- Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs. The report was completed in April 2007 (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) Paper copies can be obtained through: [email protected] A pdf version of the report is available on the website http://stalking.medlegmo.unimo.it The contents of this report represent the views of its authors and not necessarily those of the European Commission. iii Table
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Bound by Oath | Season 2 | Episode 5: Under Color of Law John​: In
    1 Bound By Oath | Season 2 | Episode 5: Under Color of Law John:​ In 1958, at 5:45 in the morning, Chicago police burst into the home of James and Flossie Monroe and dragged them out of bed at gunpoint. And they scared the hell out James and Flossie’s six children. Houston Stevens:​ The children we made a lot of noise. We screamed. We did a lot of yelling to alert all the neighbors. Cause we didn't know who these were. It was 14 white guys armed with pistols drawn. Jacqui Abrams:​ They pulled out a picture and showed me a picture. “Is this James Monroe?” Of course it is! Yes, that's him, but who are you? Ralph Stevens:​ All I can say is that I tried to block it out like a nightmare because it felt like, and I lived that way for many, many years growing up, like it was a nightmare. It was denial -- my way to suppress and deny how traumatic it was. John:​ James Monroe had not committed the crime he’d been accused of, and the police did not have a warrant to search his home or arrest him. So the family sued, seeking damages from the officers. But rather than suing in state court, James and Flossie did something that Congress had said they could do way back in 1871. They filed suit against the officers in federal court under Section One of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Today Section One is known as Section 1983. And it’s one of the most important and most frequently litigated civil rights laws on the books.
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement and Release of All Claims
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS This Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between ANDRES ALEXANDER CACEDA-MANTILLA and CITY OF PALMER, ALASKA (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Parties”). “Claimant” shall collectively mean Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla and his respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, trustees, and assigns. “Released Party” shall collectively mean City of Palmer, Alaska, and its respective, employees, assigns, heirs, agents, attorneys, adjusters, insurers, and re-insurers. I. Recitals A. The purpose this Agreement is to facilitate the settlement, dismissal with prejudice, and release of any and all claims which were asserted, or which could have been asserted, with respect to the facts giving rise to Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla v. City of Palmer, Alaska, Kristi Muilenburg, Jamie Hammons, Daniel Potter, and Hilary Schwaderer, Case No. 3PA-18-01410 CI, a lawsuit now pending in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Palmer (“the Lawsuit”). B. The City of Palmer denies all the allegations of the Lawsuit and specifically denies that it has any liability based on the allegations set forth in the Lawsuit. C. The City of Palmer regrets any inconvenience, embarrassment, or personal hardship the incident may have caused Mr. Caceda-Mantilla. D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to provide, among other things, for consideration in full settlement and discharge of all claims and actions of {00821062} SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla v. City of Palmer, Alaska, et al., Case No. 3PA-18-01410 Civil Page 1 of 9 Claimant for damages that allegedly arose out of, or due to, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • “Local Governments and Firearms: Avoiding a Jam”
    A “Local Officials: Stronger, Together” Podcast Publication “Local Governments and Firearms: Avoiding a Jam” (The materials herein become effective September 1, 2021.) (Updated portions, including “permitless” or “constitutional” carry changes, are highlighted in gray.) Scott Houston Member Liaison [email protected] 512-791-4158 www.tmlirp.org (Version 2: Last Updated June 2021) Page 1 of 46 Table of Contents Page What is the “Local Officials: Stronger, Together” Podcast Series and why should I be listening?....................................................................................................... 4 What’s in this paper? ...................................................................................................................... 5 What does the Texas “licensed carry” law authorize? .................................................................... 5 What does the so-called "constitutional" or "permitless" carry legislation authorize?....................5 In what places is a person prohibited by state law from carrying a firearm? ................................. 6 What type of signage is required to provide notice that handgun isn't allowed?...........................10 Handgun without a license.........................................................................................................10 Handgun with a license..............................................................................................................11 How has the statutory prohibition against carrying a firearm onto the premises
    [Show full text]
  • The Hand Formula in the Draft "Restatement (Third) of Torts": Encompassing Fairness As Well As Efficiencyalues V
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 Issue 3 - Symposium: The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Article 10 Torts 4-2001 The Hand Formula in the Draft "Restatement (Third) of Torts": Encompassing Fairness as Well as Efficiencyalues V Kenneth W. Simons Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth W. Simons, The Hand Formula in the Draft "Restatement (Third) of Torts": Encompassing Fairness as Well as Efficiencyalues, V 54 Vanderbilt Law Review 901 (2001) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol54/iss3/10 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as Well as Efficiency Values Kenneth W. Simons* I. THE DRAFT RESTATEMENTS DEFINITION OF NEGLI- GENCE ............................................................................... 902 II NEGLIGENCE AND FAULT ................................................... 905 III. THE DRAFT's NEGLIGENCE CRITERION AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ..................................................... 906 A. DistinguishingTradeoffs from Economic Efficiency ................................................................ 908 B. DistinguishingEx Ante Balancingfrom Consequentialism..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-Summer.Pdf
    BOWDOIN MAGAZINE ­ VOL. 82 NO. 2 SUMMER 2011 BV O L . 8 2 ­ N Oow . 2 ­ ­ S UMMER ­ 2 0 1 1­ ­ doi­n STANDP ­U WITH ­A­SOCIAL­ FOR ­THE­CLASS­OF­1961,­ BOWDOIN­IS­FOREVER CONSCIENCE JILL­SHAW­RUDDOCK­’77 HARI KONDABOLU ’04 SLICING­THE­PIE­FOR­ THE POWER OF COMEDY AS AN STUDENT­ACTIVITIES INSTRUMENT FOR CHANGE SUMMER 2011­ CONTENTS BowdoinMAGAZINE 24 A­Great­Second­Half PHOTOGRAPHS BY FELICE BOUCHER In an interview that coincided with the opening of an exhibition of the Victoria and Albert’s English alabaster reliefs at the Bowdoin College Museum of Art last semester, Jill Shaw Ruddock ’77 talks about the goal of her new book, The Second Half of Your Life—to make the second half the best half. 30 For­the­Class­of­1961,­Bowdoin­is­Forever BY LISA WESEL • PHOTOGRAHS BY BOB HANDELMAN AND BRIAN WEDGE ’97 After 50 years as Bowdoin alumni, the Class of 1961 is a particularly close-knit group. Lisa Wesel spent time with a group of them talking about friendship, formative experi- ences, and the privilege of traveling a long road together. 36 Stand­Up­With­a­Social­Conscience BY EDGAR ALLEN BEEM • PHOTOGRAPHS BY KARSTEN MORAN ’05 The Seattle Times has called Hari Kondabolu ’04 “a young man reaching for the hand-scalding torch of confrontational comics like Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor.” Ed Beem talks to Hari about his journey from Queens to Brunswick and the power of comedy as an instrument of social change. 44 Slicing­the­Pie BY EDGAR ALLEN BEEM • PHOTOGRAPHS BY DEAN ABRAMSON The Student Activity Fund Committee distributes funding of nearly $700,000 a year in support of clubs, entertainment, and community service.
    [Show full text]
  • Download A.M. V. French Court of Appeals Decision
    20-1772 A.H. v. French In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM, 2020 ARGUED: OCTOBER 13, 2020 DECIDED: JANUARY 15, 2021 No. 20-1772 A.H., by and through her parents and natural guardians, James Hester and Darlene Hester, other James Hester, other Darlene Hester; JAMES HESTER, individually; DARLENE HESTER, individually; ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, E.M., by and through her parents and natural guardians, Christopher Messineo and Jill Messineo, other Christopher Messineo, other Jill Messineo; CHRISTOPHER MESSINEO, individually; JILL MESSINEO, individually; A.M., by and through his parents and natural guardians, Christopher Messineo and Jill Messineo, other Christopher Messineo, other Jill Messineo; A.S., by and through her parents and natural guardians, Russell Senesac and Selena Senesac, other Russell Senesac, other Selena Senesac; RUSSEL SENESAC, individually; SELENA SENESAC, individually, Plaintiffs, v. 2 No. 20-1772 DANIEL M. FRENCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Education, Defendant-Appellee, GEORGE B. SPAULDING, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Vermont State Colleges System, AKA Jeb, Defendant.* ________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. ________ Before: WALKER and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.** ________ Plaintiff-Appellant A.H. is a senior at Rice Memorial High School, a ministry of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont. In August 2020, A.H. sought to participate in the Dual Enrollment Program administered by Vermont’s Agency of Education. The program pays tuition for high school juniors and seniors to take up to two courses at approved Vermont colleges.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: a Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests&Quo
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 81 | Issue 3 Article 2 2003 Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis W. David Slawson University of Southern California Gould School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation W. David Slawson, Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis, 81 Neb. L. Rev. (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol81/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. W. David Slawson* Why Expectation Damages for Breach of Contract Must Be the Norm: A Refutation of the Fuller and Perdue "Three Interests" Thesis TABLE OF CONTENTS 840 I. Introduction .......................................... Principal Institutions in a Modern Market II. The 843 Economy in Which Contracts Are Used ................ A. The Institution of the Economic Market: Contracts 843 as Bargains ....................................... Institution of Credit and Finance: Contracts as B. The 845 Property .......................................... 846 the Institutions' Needs ....................... III. Meeting 846 A. Providing a Remedy for Every Breach ............. Contracts Enforceable as Soon as They Are B. Making 847 M ade ............................................. Has Compensating the Injured Party for What He C. 848 ost ............................................... L 848 Damages Under the Expectation Measure ...... 1. 849 2. Damages Under the Reliance Measure ......... 849 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Unrealized Torts
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2002 Unrealized Torts Benjamin C. Zipursky Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] John C.P. Goldberg Harvard Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Zipursky and John C.P. Goldberg, Unrealized Torts, 88 Va. L. Rev. 1625 (2002) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/834 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 88 DECEMBER2002 NUMBER 8 ARTICLES UNREALIZED TORTS John C.P. Goldberg*& Benjamin C. Zipursky** INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1626 I. REALIZED WRONGS .................................................................. 1636 A . Crime versus Tort ................................................................ 1636 B. Tort as Civil Recourse ......................................................... 1641 II. WHEN IS HEIGHTENED RISK A COGNIZABLE INJURY? . ..... 1650 III. RISK OF FUTURE INJURY AND THE LAW OF EMOTIONAL D ISTRESS ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis
    1 Master Thesis THE VALUE OF METACRITIC AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH VIDEO GAME SALES FLAVIO TONA SHNEIDER MIKE-E January, 2020 2 3 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 8 3 MARKET ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 METASCORE ............................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.1 GRADE CONVERSION .................................................................................................... 17 3.2 HARDWARE MARKET ............................................................................................................ 19 3.3 SOFTWARE MARKET ............................................................................................................. 20 4 - VALUE ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 CONSUMER ....................................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 - VALUE FOR THE INDUSTRY AND USAGE ......................................................................................... 22 4 METHODOLOGY
    [Show full text]
  • Loss of Consortium Damages
    If you have questions or would like further information regarding Loss of Consortium, 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 please contact: www.querrey.com® Chuck Blackman 312-540-7682 © 2011 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. [email protected] ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XIV DAMAGES C. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In Illinois, under certain circumstances, an Reiss, 92 Ill. App. 3d 200 (1980); Medley v. injured person’s spouse is entitled to damages for Strong, 200 Ill. App. 3d 488 (1990). “loss of consortium.” I.P.I. 32.04 (2000). Loss of consortium has been defined to include the However, where two persons have a valid support, society, companionship, and sexual marriage under the laws of the state in which they relationship that a husband or wife has been are domiciled, they may still be entitled to a loss deprived of to date, and which he or she is of consortium claim. (People who are domiciled reasonably certain to be deprived of in the future, in Illinois and have crossed state lines for the due to the claimed injury to or death of a spouse. purpose of getting married may not be entitled to Schrock v. Shoemaker, 159 Ill. 2d 533 (1994); recover.) Allen v. Storer, 235 Ill. App. 3d 5 Elliott v. Willis, 92 Ill. 2d 530 (1982); Dini v. (1992). Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406 (1960). The tort of loss of consortium is an action based on an injury to the In a wrongful death action, the surviving personal relationship established by the marriage spouse can recover damages for loss of contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue-144-September-2011.Pdf
    A Publication of the Mid-West Tool Collectors Association One Hand Ice Saws Article begins on page 16 Studying, Preserving, and Sharing Knowledge of Tools M-WTCA.ORG M-WfCA Logo Wooden Sign Article begins on page 32 September 2011 No. 144 The Gristmill Index Features Departments Ringing Out the Spirits ............ ......... ........... 15 Chaff . .. ..... ................. ......... .. .. .... 4 One-Hand Ice Saws - Part 2 ................... ........ 16 Committee Reports .... ......... ........... .. ..... .. .. 5 Archiving Our Articles ................................ 23 Area Meetings ....................................... 6 Little Know Facts - Found In The ??? ........ ... .. ...... 27 Another What's-It ........... ... .... ....... .......... 22 Welch & Griffiths - Boston Saw Makers .................. 28 Lest We Forget .......... .... ........... .... .. .. .. 26 Expanding on the M-WTCA Experience .......... .. ..... 29 You Can't Hear it Coming if it Doesn't Make a Sound ..... 31 Area Q's Support of Preservation & Education in North Carolina .. 30 Obituaries ........ ..... .. .. .. .... .. .... .. ..... 35 M-WTCA Logo Wooden Sign ......... .. .. ............ 32 Auxiliary ... ......... .. .. .... .. .. ..... .... ....... 38 Bracing for the Challenges of Collecting All of Them ..... 33 A Missing Link in the Disston History ... .............. .... 34 Saw Mystery ...... ... .. .......... ..... ............. 37 The Gristmill No. 144 September, 2011 Copyright 2011 by Mid-West Tool Collectors Directors Committee Chairman Association, Inc.
    [Show full text]