May 22, 2018
In resolving certified questions, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the common-law rule that limited punitive damages to litigation expenses less costs was inapplicable to punitive damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA). The court found that trial courts are vested with exclusive authority to determine the amount of punitive damages, limited by the amounts prescribed in the Act. Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402, 152 A.3d 1183, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 410 (Conn. 2016).
In the context of products liability, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b specifically provides that punitive damages may be awarded in product liability actions if the claimant proves that the harm suffered was the result of the product seller’s reckless disregard for the safety of product users, consumers or others who were injured by the product. It is within the sole discretion of the jury to determine whether punitive damages are warranted in a case. Once the trier makes that determination, the court then gets to decide the amount of damages. However, the court is limited by the ceiling provided in § 52-240b, which states that the punitive damages shall not exceed an amount equal to twice the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m provides definitions to some of the relevant terms in the products liability context. It states, in relevant part, that a “product liability claim” includes all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m (b). The term “harm” includes damage to property, including the product itself, as well as personal injuries including wrongful death. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(d). The definitions contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m are expressly applicable to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b; the legislative meanings attributed to the words “claimant” and “harm” in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b are sufficiently broad to allow punitive damages being awarded in a product liability case involving only damage to property. American Airline, Inc. v. National Automatic Products Co., 39 Conn. Supp. 269 (Conn. Super.Ct. 1984).
Some defendant manufacturers have had success in getting punitive damages counts dismissed via motions for summary judgment, but no such cases involved asbestos-containing products.A claim for punitive damages was dismissed on summary judgment where there was no showing of reckless disregard for the rights of others and intentional and wanton violations of those rights on the part of the defendant, the manufacturer of a prosthetic hip which allegedly failed on plaintiff patient.Dunn v. Zimmer, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5345 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2005). Similarly, a manufacturer was granted summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-240b where, taking plaintiff’s assertions as true, they could not support a finding of recklessness. Because the manufacturer had no prior notice of any manufacturing defect (or notice of facts that would have disclosed such a defect to a reasonable person) with respect to a hose connection, it could not have recklessly disregarded the risk associated with such a defect. Reiske v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27845 (D. Conn. Mar. 2, 2012).By contrast, in products liability claims involving asbestos-containing products, the issue of punitive damages generally is not decided on a motion for summary judgment because the relief sought is tied to the specific allegations of a complaint, and whether a plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s products and whether such products contained asbestos are the issues of material fact for trier to decide. See Mastroianni v. Acands, Inc., 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1196 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 17, 2011); Rutan v. Wayne Combustion Sys., 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3266 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 2011).Thus, in Connecticut asbestos litigation, a defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment with respect to punitive damages count will most likely be unsuccessful.