NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35 (2026)

Punitive damages awards

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1D CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In determining the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be awarded, the trier of fact:

(1) Shall consider the purposes of punitive damages set forth in G.S. 1D-1; and

(2) May consider only that evidence that relates to the following:

a. The reprehensibility of the defendant's motives and conduct.

b. The likelihood, at the relevant time, of serious harm.

c. The degree of the defendant's awareness of the probable consequences of its conduct.

d. The duration of the defendant's conduct.

e. The actual damages suffered by the claimant.

f. Any concealment by the defendant of the facts or consequences of its conduct.

g. The existence and frequency of any similar past conduct by the defendant.

h. Whether the defendant profited from the conduct.

i. The defendant's ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or net worth. (1995, c. 514, s. 1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Hutelmyer v. Cox, 514 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hutelmyer v. Cox, 514 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “In passing, we note that under section 1D-40, "the court shall instruct the jury with regard to subdivisions (1) and (2) of G.S. 1D-35." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-40 (1997).”

Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., 555 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “Our interpretation is buttressed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-35, which provides that the jury, in determining the amount of punitive damages, may consider evidence that relates to a variety of factors, including "[t]he actual damages suffered by the claimant.”

Oddo v. Presser, 581 S.E.2d 123 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “§ 1D-15 is whether, due to defendant's fraudulent, malicious, willful, or wanton conduct, sufficient evidence of aggravation exists to entitle plaintiff to punitive damages. Therefore, although G.”

Joyce McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, 980 F.3d 937 (4th Cir. 2020). “28 (1993) (plurality opinion) (observing the “well-settled” principle that a defendant’s “net worth” is one factor “typically considered in assessing punitive damages”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(i) (allowing consideration of the defendant’s ability to pay “as evidenced by its…”

Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 562 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Were it otherwise, the General Assembly could easily have made plural the terms "the amount" and "an award." It did not, and we are therefore bound by the text of the statute.”

Decker v. Homes, inc./Constr. Mgmt., 654 S.E.2d 495 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 1D-15 (2005), it did not establish the factors which the jury was to consider in determining the amount of punitive damages under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-35 (2005). During the retrial on punitive damages, both plaintiffs and defendants may *502 present evidence pursuant to N.”

Harrell v. Bowen, 655 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. 2008). · cites it 3× “§ 1D-35 (2007). Notably, neither section 1D-15 nor any other section of Chapter 1D limits punitive damages to situations in which a plaintiff can establish the presence of every stated statutory purpose for the award of punitive damages.”

Ellison v. Gambill Oil Co., Inc., 650 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “he plaintiff or others similarly situated; the degree of the defendant[s'] awareness of the probable consequences of [their] conduct; the duration of the defendant[s'] conduct; the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff; any concealment by the defendant[s] of the facts or…”

Fredric Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2 F.4th 276 (4th Cir. 2021). “By the same token, we cannot ourselves determine with the requisite level of certainty what amount may compensate Eshelman for the defamatory statements.”

Hien Nguyen v. Taylor, 723 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Moreover, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2), the trier of fact “[m]ay consider only that evidence that relates to[,]” inter alia, “[w]hether the defendant profited from the conduct” and “f t]he defendant’s ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or net worth.”

Ward v. Beaton, 539 S.E.2d 30 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-35(i) (listing as a permissible factor to be considered "[t]he defendant's ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or net worth") N.”

Geraldine VanDevender v. Blue Ridge of Raleigh, LLC, 901 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 2018). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35 (2017). Applying the punitive damages statute to the evidence presented at trial, the district court found Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages for two reasons.”

Show all 34 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(1) — 2 cases

Hutelmyer v. Cox, 514 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999). “In passing, we note that under section 1D-40, "the court shall instruct the jury with regard to subdivisions (1) and (2) of G.S. 1D-35." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-40 (1997).”

Harrell v. Bowen, 655 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. 2008). “§ 1D-35 (2007). Notably, neither section 1D-15 nor any other section of Chapter 1D limits punitive damages to situations in which a plaintiff can establish the presence of every stated statutory purpose for the award of punitive damages.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2) — 10 cases

Ellison v. Gambill Oil Co., Inc., 650 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). “he plaintiff or others similarly situated; the degree of the defendant[s'] awareness of the probable consequences of [their] conduct; the duration of the defendant[s'] conduct; the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff; any concealment by the defendant[s] of the facts or…”

Hien Nguyen v. Taylor, 723 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “Moreover, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2), the trier of fact “[m]ay consider only that evidence that relates to[,]” inter alia, “[w]hether the defendant profited from the conduct” and “f t]he defendant’s ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or net worth.”

Simmons, Jr. v. Wiles (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2021).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(a) — 1 case

Seraph Garrison, LLC v. Garrison, 2016 NCBC 63 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2016).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(c) — 1 case

Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., 555 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “Our interpretation is buttressed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-35, which provides that the jury, in determining the amount of punitive damages, may consider evidence that relates to a variety of factors, including "[t]he actual damages suffered by the claimant.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(e) — 1 case

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(g) — 1 case

Boileau v. Seagrave, 667 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(2)(i) — 4 cases

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Guzman (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Noble Bottling, LLC v. Reinhart Holdings, LLC (W.D.N.C. 2023).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(I) — 1 case

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-35(i) — 1 case

Ward v. Beaton, 539 S.E.2d 30 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1D-35(i) (listing as a permissible factor to be considered "[t]he defendant's ability to pay punitive damages, as evidenced by its revenues or net worth") N.”

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.