Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265

Limitations on punitive damages in certain cases

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

510.265. Limitations on punitive damages in certain cases. — 1. No award of punitive damages against any defendant shall exceed the greater of:

(1) Five hundred thousand dollars; or

(2) Five times the net amount of the judgment awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant.

Such limitations shall not apply if the state of Missouri is the plaintiff requesting the award of punitive damages, or the defendant pleads guilty to or is convicted of a felony arising out of the acts or omissions pled by the plaintiff.

2. The provisions of this section and sections 510.261 and 510.263 shall not apply to civil actions brought under section 213.111 that allege a violation of section 213.040, 213.045, 213.050, or 213.070, to the extent that the alleged violation of section 213.070 relates to or involves a violation of section 213.040, 213.045, or 213.050, or subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 213.070 as it relates to housing.

--------

(L. 2005 H.B. 393, A.L. 2020 S.B. 591)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Applicability of statute changes for cases filed after August 28, 2005, 538.305; for cases filed after August 28, 2020, 510.262

(2014) Section's cap on punitive damage awards is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 22 (a) of Missouri Constitution; right to a jury trial in 1820 included right to have a jury determine amount of punitive damages in an action for fraud. Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC (2012) mo · cites it 96× “By setting substantive limits on recovery regardless of the evidence, statutes such as section 510.265, RSMo, unavoidably limit the constitutional role of the jury.”

Lillian M. Lewellen, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Chad Franklin and Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC, Respo (2014) mo · cites it 54× “Pursuant to section 510.265, 1 the circuit court reduced the punitive damages awards against Mr.”

Jason D. Dodson and Jason D. Dodson, Jr., a Minor, and Eva Raine Dodson-Lohse, a Minor, and August William Davis Dodson, (2016) mo · cites it 18× “The plaintiff did not challenge the application of the caps in section 510.265, RSMo Supp. 2013, to the punitive damages award under the MMPA because Overbey previously held that caps on the amount of damages recoverable under a statutory cause of action were not…”

Gail & Darrell Mansfield v. Caleb Horner & John Horner (2014) moctapp · cites it 30× “The Horners’ motion to open, amend, and correct the judgment asserted that the Horners were entitled to remittitur because section 510.265 10 limits damages for aggravating circumstances to five times the net amount of the judgment.”

Hervey v. Missouri Department of Corrections (2012) mo · cites it 19× “While it acknowledges that there is no direct authority interpreting the phrase “net amount of the judgment” under section 510.265, RSMo 2000, it argues the cases it cites should give the Court guidance in determining the “net amount of the judgment.”

City of Harrisonville, Appellant-Respondent v. McCall Service Stations d/b/a Big Tank Oil, the Missouri Petroleum Storag (2016) mo · cites it 18× “Therefore, § 510.265, the cap on punitive damages, is applicable unless application would violate a provision of the Missouri or United States Constitution.”

Poage v. Crane Co. (2017) moctapp · cites it 8× “Poage’s punitive damages award: (1) it did not comport with principles of due process, (2) it facially exceeds fair compensation, and (3) the punitive damages award exceeds the statutory cap of § 510.265. 9 a. Standard of Review for Remittitur of Punitive Damages “Generally, the…”

Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp. (2013) moctapp · cites it 9× “The trial court, pursuant to the statutory cap in section 510.265, 2 reduced the punitive award to $881,789.”

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “2007) (greater of 2:1 or $250,000); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann.”

Heckadon v. CFS Enterprises, Inc. (2013) moctapp · cites it 7× “Nevertheless, Appellants contend that the punitive damages caps set forth in § 510.265 indicate that Missouri law favors a limit on punitive damages of a 5:1 ratio.”

Fireworks Restoration Co. v. Hosto (2012) moctapp · cites it 5× “As the Missouri Supreme Court noted in Estate of Overbey , this rationale is supported by the language of Section 510.265 RSMo Cum. Supp.2008, which codifies a cap to punitive damage awards.”

Tanisha Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department Steven A. Gori, Michael A. Deeba, Sr., Saint Louis Boar (2016) mo · cites it 2× “Ross-Paige filed a post-trial motion to alter or amend the judgment to include an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, Defendants filed a motion to reduce the punitive damages award pursuant to the statutory cap set forth in section…”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265(1) — 1 case

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus “2007) (greater of 2:1 or $250,000); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265(2) — 1 case

Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp. (2013) moctapp “The trial court, pursuant to the statutory cap in section 510.265, 2 reduced the punitive award to $881,789.”

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.