Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 549.20 (2026)

Punitive Damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Standard.

(a) Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

(b) A defendant has acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others and:

(1) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability of injury to the rights or safety of others; or

(2) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others.

Subd. 2.Master and principal.

Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or principal because of an act done by an agent only if:

(1) the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act;

(2) the agent was unfit and the principal deliberately disregarded a high probability that the agent was unfit;

(3) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity with authority to establish policy and make planning level decisions for the principal and was acting in the scope of that employment; or

(4) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal, described in clause (3), ratified or approved the act while knowing of its character and probable consequences.

Subd. 3.Factors.

Any award of punitive damages shall be measured by those factors which justly bear upon the purpose of punitive damages, including the seriousness of hazard to the public arising from the defendant's misconduct, the profitability of the misconduct to the defendant, the duration of the misconduct and any concealment of it, the degree of the defendant's awareness of the hazard and of its excessiveness, the attitude and conduct of the defendant upon discovery of the misconduct, the number and level of employees involved in causing or concealing the misconduct, the financial condition of the defendant, and the total effect of other punishment likely to be imposed upon the defendant as a result of the misconduct, including compensatory and punitive damage awards to the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, and the severity of any criminal penalty to which the defendant may be subject.

Subd. 4.Separate proceeding.

In a civil action in which punitive damages are sought, the trier of fact shall, if requested by any of the parties, first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded. Evidence of the financial condition of the defendant and other evidence relevant only to punitive damages is not admissible in that proceeding. After a determination has been made, the trier of fact shall, in a separate proceeding, determine whether and in what amount punitive damages will be awarded.

Subd. 5.Judicial review.

The court shall specifically review the punitive damages award in light of the factors set forth in subdivision 3 and shall make specific findings with respect to them. The appellate court, if any, also shall review the award in light of the factors set forth in that subdivision. Nothing in this section may be construed to restrict either court's authority to limit punitive damages.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 284 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls., 482 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls., 482 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 28× “If the legislature intended to exempt religious organizations from Minn. Stat. § 549.20 (1986), it could have specifically done so, as it did with municipalities in Minn.”

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 389 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 12× “Although Minnesota law recognizes that punitive damages may be imposed in certain actions, see Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1984), the instant suit is not an appropriate action in which to do so.”

Bradley v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 471 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 36× “2d at 892 (Minn.Stat. § 549.20 should not be read to extend punitive damages to newly recognized causes of action).”

Healey v. I-Flow, LLC, 853 F. Supp. 2d 868 (D. Minnesota 2012). · cites it 22× “” Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a). The pivotal phrase “deliberate disregard” is statutorily defined in section 549.”

Minneapolis Police Dep't v. Kelly, 776 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 32× “The ordinance specifies that punitive damages must comply with Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a) (2008). Ordinance § 141.”

Ulrich v. City of Crosby, 848 F. Supp. 861 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 17× “As amended in 1986, Minnesota Statutes § 549.20 provided, in pertinent part: Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show a willful indifference to the rights or safety of others.”

Jensen v. Walsh, 623 N.W.2d 247 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 22× “Two lines of authority converge to form our analysis of the issue, our common law and our statutory law, specifically the punitive damages statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (2000). The statute was intended to codify our common law on punitive damages.”

Gilchrist v. Perl, 387 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 16× “See Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 3 (1983). 345 N.”

Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc., 336 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 10× “Punitive damages in this case were assessed under Minn.Stat. § 549.20 (1982). Subdivision 1 of the statute provides that punitive damages may be awarded in civil actions “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of defendant show a willful indifference to the rights…”

Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 24× “" Minn.Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1 (1994). The statute codified existing law.”

Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 8× “For there to be punitive damages the defendant must have acted with "willful indifference to the * * * safety of others" and this conduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.”

Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 707 F. Supp. 1517 (D. Minnesota 1989). · cites it 10× “Searle claims that the Minnesota punitive damages statute, Minn.Stat. § 549.20, offends due process because it imposes no limit on the amount of punitive damages a jury can award, and provides no standards to aid the jury in fairly assessing punitive damages.”

Show all 284 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(1) — 6 cases

Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 700 F.3d 1161 (8th Cir. 2012).

Agristor Leasing v. Guggisberg, 617 F. Supp. 902 (D. Minnesota 1985).

Jacobs v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 352 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

Galjour v. Gen. Am. Tank Car Corp., 764 F. Supp. 1093 (E.D. La. 1991).

Holmberg v. Morrisette, 800 F.2d 205 (8th Cir. 1986).

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(1)(a) — 2 cases

In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 218 F.R.D. 197 (D. Minnesota 2003).

Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994).

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(2) — 2 cases

Briner v. Hyslop, 337 N.W.2d 858 (Iowa 1983).

Don M. Davis, as of the Est. of Ethlyn M. Davis, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee, 906 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir. 1990).

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(3) — 3 cases

Villella v. Waikem Motors, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1989).

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998).

Stanley McDonald Norman R. Hagfors, & Clayton Jensen v. Johnson & Johnson, 722 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1984).

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(4) — 2 cases

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. 1994).

Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994).

— Minn. Stat. § 549.20(l)(a) — 2 cases

Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1992).

Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994).

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.