In this dispute over a commercial lease, a jury awarded $49,100 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages, based on a claim of “intentional interference with premises.” The trial court struck the punitive damages award on the ground that the conduct at issue involved only a breach of contract, not a tort, and therefore could not support any tort remedies, including punitive damages.
In a published opinion, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) affirmed: “Ginsberg essentially argues that Gamson maliciously breached the contract, and asserts Gamson’s evil motive for breaching her contractual duties warranted imposition of tort remedies. It did not.”
