Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 55
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208 (2026)

Limitations on the amount of punitive damages

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a punitive damages award for each plaintiff shall not be more than the greater of the following:
    1. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000); or
    2. Three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the action, not to exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000).
  2. Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply when the finder of fact:
    1. Determines by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the injury, the defendant intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the purpose of causing injury or damage; and
    2. Determines that the defendant's conduct did, in fact, harm the plaintiff.
  3. As to the punitive damages limitations established in subsection (a) of this section, the fixed sums of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) set forth in subdivision (a)(1) of this section and one million dollars ($1,000,000) set forth in subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall be adjusted as of January 1, 2006, and at three-year intervals thereafter, in accordance with the Consumer Price Index rate for the previous year as determined by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

History. Acts 2003, No. 649, § 11; 2003, No. 1471, § 1.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2003, No. 1471, § 1, amended this section as enacted by Acts 2003, No. 649, § 11.

Publisher's Notes. This section was held unconstitutional in Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518, 385 S.W.3d 822 (2011).

Research References

ALR.

Exemplary or punitive damages for pharmacist's wrongful conduct in preparing or dispensing medical prescription — Cases not under Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2072). 109 A.L.R.5th 397.

Allowance of Punitive Damages in Motor Vehicles Products Liability Cases, 17 A.L.R.7th Art. 4 (2018).

Ark. L. Rev.

Note, To Truly Reform We Must Be Informed: Davis v. Parham, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the Constitutionality of Tort Reform in Arkansas, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 781.

Rachel A. Orr, Recent Developments: Punitive Damages Cap of Arkansas Tort Reform Act Held Unconstitutional — Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer , 65 Ark. L. Rev. 163 (2012).

Austin A. King, Case Note: A Problematic Procedure: The Struggle for Control of Procedural Rulemaking Power, 67 Ark. L. Rev. 759 (2014).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Sevawn Foster, Note: Constitutional Law — Arkansas’s Current Procedural Rulemaking Conundrum: Attempting to Quell the Political Discord, 37 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 105 (2014).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

This section was unconstitutional under Ark. Const. Art. 5, § 32, because it limited the amount of recovery outside of an employment relationship. Therefore, a punitive damage award of $42 million against a manufacturer of genetically altered rice that allowed its rice to contaminate conventional seed was upheld. Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518, 385 S.W.3d 822 (2011).

Cited: Holiday Inn Franchising v. Hotel Assocs., 2011 Ark. App. 147, 382 S.W.3d 6 (2011).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2011 · leading case: Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer (2011) ark · cites it 18× “For reversal, Bayer contends that (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-208 (Repl.2005) is unconstitutional; (2) the rice farmers’ claims are barred by the “economic-loss doctrine”; (3) the circuit court abused its discretion by failing…”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus · cites it 4× “020 (g) (2006) (higher statutory limit applies where conduct was motivated by financial gain and its adverse consequences were known to the defendant); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208 (b) (2005) (statutory limit does not apply where the defendant intentionally pursued a course of…”
Holiday Inn Franchising, Inc. v. Hotel Associates, Inc. (2011) arkctapp · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-208 (Repl.2005). These statutes militate in favor of reducing the jury’s punitive-damages award, but they are not alone disposi-tive.”
Bearden v. Wyeth (2006) paed “As defendants point out, whatever differences exist do not create a true conflict. Arkansas statutorily limits punitive damages for each plaintiff to either $250,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded, not to exceed $1,000,000.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208(b) — 1 case
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus “020 (g) (2006) (higher statutory limit applies where conduct was motivated by financial gain and its adverse consequences were known to the defendant); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208 (b) (2005) (statutory limit does not apply where the defendant intentionally pursued a course of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.