State Farm v. Campbell: Curtailment of Punitive Damages?

Vague jury instructions affording broad discretion, unrestrained passion and prejudice overshadowing reason, and permissive state court judges substantially approving disproportionate awards have all conspired to undermine the principled application of BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), by state courts. (Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Campbell deemed Gore “insusceptible of principled application.”) Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined: “The Utah Supreme Court sought to apply the three guideposts we identified in Gore.” (emphasis added) Continued unpredictable state punitive damage awards arising out of inconsistent application of the Gore guideposts led the Court's majority to define applicable constitutional standards further and offer what is hoped will be a greater measure of predictability to would-be litigants. No doubt, Campbell has afforded corporate defendants significant tools for curtailing runaway exemplary damages. Still, amid the defendants' celebrations (remember that similar euphoria followed Gore), uncertainty remains. In fact, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent cautioned that Campbell “takes place on ground not long held.” In short, it may be too soon for defendants to celebrate.