A. In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the jury, in addition to actual damages, may, subject to the provisions and limitations in subsections B, C and D of this section, award punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant based upon the following factors: 1. The seriousness of the hazard to the public arising from the defendant's misconduct; 2. The profitability of the misconduct to the defendant; 3. The duration of the misconduct and any concealment of it; 4. The degree of the defendant's awareness of the hazard and of its excessiveness; 5. The attitude and conduct of the defendant upon discovery of the misconduct or hazard; 6. In the case of a defendant which is a corporation or other entity, the number and level of employees involved in causing or concealing the misconduct; and 7. The financial condition of the defendant. B. Category I. Where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. The defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others; or 2. An insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured; the jury, in a
separate proceeding conducted after the jury has made such finding and awarded actual damages, may award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greater of: a. One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), or b. the amount of the actual damages awarded. Any award of punitive damages under this subsection awarded in any manner other than as required in this subsection shall be void and reversible error. C. Category II. Where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. The defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others; or 2. An insurer has intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured; the jury, in a separate proceeding conducted after the jury has made such finding and awarded actual damages, may award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greatest of: a. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00), b. twice the amount of actual damages awarded, or c. the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons or entities. The trial court shall reduce any award for punitive damages awarded pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph c of this paragraph by the amount it finds the defendant or insurer has previously paid as a result of all punitive damage verdicts entered in any court of this state for the same conduct by the defendant or insurer. Any award of punitive damages under this subsection awarded in any manner other than as required in this subsection shall be void and reversible error. D. Category III. Where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. The defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others; or 2. An insurer has intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured; and the court finds, on the record and out of the presence of the jury, that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or insurer acted intentionally and with malice and engaged in conduct life-threatening to humans, the jury, in a separate proceeding conducted after the jury has made such finding and awarded actual damages, may award punitive damages in any amount the jury deems appropriate, without regard to the limitations set forth in subsections B and C of this section. Any award of punitive damages under this subsection awarded in any
manner other than as required in this subsection shall be void and reversible error. E. In determining the amount, if any, of punitive damages to be awarded under either subsection B, C or D of this section, the jury shall make the award based upon the factors set forth in subsection A of this section. F. The provisions of this section are severable, and if any part or provision thereof shall be held void, the decision of the court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions thereof. G. This section shall apply to all civil actions filed after the effective date of this act. Added by Laws 1995, c. 287, § 2. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 462, § 1, eff. July 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Gilbert v. Sec. Fin. Corp. of Oklahoma, 2006 OK 58 (Okla. 2006).
· cites it 12× “[38] 23 O.S.Supp.2002, § 9.1. [39] We need not address the constitutionality of all subsections of section 9.”
Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48 (Okla. 2005).
· cites it 4× “¶ 64 As applicable to this case, 23 O.S.2001, § 9.1 provides that a jury may award punitive damages if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that an insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured [§ 9.”
Okland Oil Co. v. Conoco Inc., 144 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 6× “1989); Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1 (A). This is true even where breach of contract is also alleged and where the “parties’ relationship basically is contractual, if the breaching party’s acts constitute ‘an independent, willful tort.”
Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 2006 OK 47 (Okla. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The trial judge instructed the jury on the factors to be considered in determining an amount of punitive damages, but denied Tidewater’s counsel’s request to make closing argument on the amount of punitive damages.”
YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81 (Okla. 1997).
· cites it 6× “25 The 1986 text was repealed and replaced in 1995 by the provisions of 23 O.S.Supp.1995 § 9.1. The' latter language is presently in force.”
Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1 . Second, one subsection of the statute allows a jury to award exemplary damages beyond the limitations provided in other subsections when the jury concludes the “defendant has acted intentionally and with malice toward others.”
Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2011).
“, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1 (West) (''the jury, in addition to actual damages, may, .”
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “23 O.S. §9.1(A). "Category I" punitive damages may be awarded "[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”
Black v. M & W Gear Co., 269 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1 . The amount of punitive damages that may be awarded depends on the defendant’s mental culpability.”
McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1 (B)(1). Given these allegations and the nature of the damages sought, the complaint on its face may be sufficient by itself to support removal.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(A) — 4 cases
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
“23 O.S. §9.1(A). "Category I" punitive damages may be awarded "[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(A)(7) — 1 case
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
“23 O.S. §9.1(A). "Category I" punitive damages may be awarded "[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B) — 4 cases
Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 2006 OK 47 (Okla. 2006).
“The trial judge instructed the jury on the factors to be considered in determining an amount of punitive damages, but denied Tidewater’s counsel’s request to make closing argument on the amount of punitive damages.”
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
“23 O.S. §9.1(A). "Category I" punitive damages may be awarded "[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(1) — 6 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2)(b) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C) — 5 cases
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
“23 O.S. §9.1(A). "Category I" punitive damages may be awarded "[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C)(2) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(E) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(F) — 1 case
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.