A $150 million punitive damages award is officially gone. The Supreme Court of California denied review yesterday in Soulliere v. Suzuki, leaving intact the appellate decision that vacated the entire punitive award.
The case involved a motorcycle crash that the plaintiff claimed occurred because one of the brakes on his motorcycle completely failed. That theory conflicted with what he told the police shortly after the accident.
At a 2018 trial, the judge refused to allow the investigating police officer to testify about what the plaintiff said after the crash. A jury awarded over $7 million, including $6 million in punitive damages, and Suzuki appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that it was error to exclude the officer’s testimony.
The case was retried in 2023 before the same trial judge, who made the same error again by excluding the officer’s testimony. This time, the jury awarded a whopping $11 million in compensatory damages and $150 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the punitive damages to $50 million in response to Suzuki’s post-trial motions.
Suzuki appealed again, and once again the Court of Appeal reversed. It held that a new trial was required due to the exclusion of the officer’s testimony. The court also concluded that the plaintiff forfeited his claim for punitive damages by failing to present meaningful evidence of Suzuki’s financial condition. The plaintiff presented evidence of Suzuki’s assets and income, but not its expenses and liabilities.
The plaintiff argued on appeal that he should be excused from presenting a fuller picture of Suzuki’s financial condition because Suzuki had stipulated to the accuracy of the financial information he did present. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument because Suzuki stipulated only that the information was accurate, not that it was sufficient to meet plaintiff’s burden of proof.
The plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to grant review to decide whether plaintiffs must always prove a defendant’s net worth in order to meet their burden of proof. The Supreme Court declined.
Disclosure: Suzuki retained Horvitz & Levy in this case after the 2023 verdict to consult on posttrial motions and handle the appeal.
