Due Process and Punitive Damages

Reformers' efforts had started to produce results. In April, 1990, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip to decide vhether juryawarded punitive damages of over one million dollars in an insurance fraud case violate the defendant insurance companies' due process fourteenth amendment rights where compensatory damages were only $2,500. The Supreme Court's decision to review the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Haslip is consistent with the Supreme Court's recent decisions on punitive damages. In 1989, in Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the eighth amendment's excessive fines clause does not apply to an award of money damages in a civil suit between private parties.

While Browning-Ferris appeared to end eighth amendment concerns in cases not involving the state, the Court left open the possibility that punitive damages might violate the fourteenth amendment due process clause. Because Browning-Ferris Industries failed to raise the due process argument at both the trial and appellate levels, the Court could not consider the issue. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, concurred in Browning-Ferris and suggested that jury-awarded punitive damages might violate due process."