Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-1604 (2026)

Limitation on punitive damages.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Limitation on punitive damages.

(1) In any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.

(2) In all civil actions in which punitive damages are permitted, no claim for damages shall be filed containing a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. However, a party may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after hearing before the court, amend the pleadings to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The court shall allow the motion to amend the pleadings if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. A prayer for relief added pursuant to this section shall not be barred by lapse of time under any applicable limitation on the time in which an action may be brought or claim asserted, if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed.

(3) No judgment for punitive damages shall exceed the greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) or an amount which is three (3) times the compensatory damages contained in such judgment. If a case is tried to a jury, the jury shall not be informed of this limitation. The limitations on noneconomic damages contained in section 6-1603, Idaho Code, are not applicable to punitive damages.

(4) Nothing in this section is intended to change the rules of evidence used by a trier of fact in finding punitive damages.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 111 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Weinstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 233 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weinstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 233 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 24× “Did the district court err in refusing to apply Idaho Code §§ 6-1604 (1) & (3) to this action? 8.”

Vendelin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 95 P.3d 34 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 30× “Vendelin moved to amend her complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages pursuant to I.C. § 6-1604 on September 6, 2002. A hearing on the motion was held on September 19, 2002.”

Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 16× “Idaho Code section 6-1604 provides that a plaintiff seeking to recover punitive damages “must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Myers v. Workmen's Auto Ins., 95 P.3d 977 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 12× “On February 4, 2002, Myers filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages pursuant to I.C. § 6-1604. Myers amended her motion on February 13, 2002.”

Bach v. Bagley, 229 P.3d 1146 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 8× “In order to add a claim for punitive damages, the moving party must demonstrate to the court in a pretrial hearing that there is a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support a punitive damage award.”

Kara Alexander v. Vianna Stibal, 385 P.3d 431 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 20× “The district court denied these post-trial motions, but reduced the punitive damages award to $384,000 pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604. On appeal, Stibal challenges the district court’s rulings on the contract, fraud, and punitive damages issues.”

Harwood v. Talbert, 39 P.3d 612 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 17× “Idaho Code § 6-1604 provides that: In all civil actions in which punitive damages are permitted, no claim for damages shall be filed containing a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.”

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assocs., LLP, 224 P.3d 1068 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 12× “To recover punitive damages, "the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Thurston Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 435 P.3d 489 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 6-1604. In addition to oppressive behavior in a business context, the Idaho Court of Appeals has articulated five factors that courts consider in deciding whether there is substantial evidence of an extreme deviation from standards of reasonable conduct: (1) the presence…”

Inland Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 985 P.2d 674 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 20× “" Providence also alleges that the district court did not make specific findings as required under I.C. § 6-1604 that would allow the jury to consider evidence of punitive damages.”

Akers v. D.L. White Constr., Inc., 320 P.3d 428 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 16× “Idaho Code § 6-1604 (1) provides that “[i]n any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Mac Tools, Inc. v. Griffin, 879 P.2d 1126 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 16× “Mac further argues that I.C. § 6-1604 constitutes another limitation on the award of punitive damages with the following language: (1) In any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton,…”

Show all 111 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 6-1604(1) — 26 cases

Kara Alexander v. Vianna Stibal, 385 P.3d 431 (Idaho 2016). “The district court denied these post-trial motions, but reduced the punitive damages award to $384,000 pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604. On appeal, Stibal challenges the district court’s rulings on the contract, fraud, and punitive damages issues.”

Choice Feed Inc. v. Montierth, 481 P.3d 78 (Idaho 2021).

Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016). “Idaho Code section 6-1604 provides that a plaintiff seeking to recover punitive damages “must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Akers v. D.L. White Constr., Inc., 320 P.3d 428 (Idaho 2014). “Idaho Code § 6-1604 (1) provides that “[i]n any action seeking recovery of punitive damages, the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Cummings v. Stephens, 336 P.3d 281 (Idaho 2014).

— Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) — 41 cases

Bach v. Bagley, 229 P.3d 1146 (Idaho 2010). “In order to add a claim for punitive damages, the moving party must demonstrate to the court in a pretrial hearing that there is a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support a punitive damage award.”

Mikesell v. Newworld Dev. Corp., 840 P.2d 1090 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992).

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assocs., LLP, 224 P.3d 1068 (Idaho 2010). “To recover punitive damages, "the claimant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, oppressive, fraudulent, malicious or outrageous conduct by the party against whom the claim for punitive damages is asserted.”

Cummings v. Stephens, 336 P.3d 281 (Idaho 2014).

— Idaho Code § 6-1604(3) — 5 cases

Choice Feed Inc. v. Montierth, 481 P.3d 78 (Idaho 2021).

Thurston Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 435 P.3d 489 (Idaho 2019). “I.C. § 6-1604. In addition to oppressive behavior in a business context, the Idaho Court of Appeals has articulated five factors that courts consider in deciding whether there is substantial evidence of an extreme deviation from standards of reasonable conduct: (1) the presence…”

Edmark Auto, Inc. v. Zurich, Inc. (D. Idaho 2020).

Thurston & T3 v. Safeguard (Idaho 2019).

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.