Case Summary

2285 REVIEW DENIED SCIF may be liable to policyholders for compensatory and punitive damages for artificially and fraudulently inflating reserves and refusing to reasonably settle claims against policyholders, thus increasing the policyholders' premiums; evidence of a defendant's worth may be admissible during the liability phase of a bifurcated trial if it is relevant to liability; evidence of defendant's income may be relevant to liability if it is offered to rebut defendant's claim that the fear of financial ruin drove it to take the steps of which plaintiff complains; the determination of whether punitive damages awarded against SCIF bear a rational relationship to compensatory damages should not be based solely on the ratio between the awards, but may include consideration of SCIF's place in society and the effect that enforcement of the punitive damages award might have on other policyholders.

NOTRICA v SCIF (SCIF Puni's) 70 CA4 911 [See: CivC 3294, 3295; Security v SCIF 17 CA4 887, T/AT 10/93; Tricor v SCIF 30 CA4 230, T/AT 12/94; MacGregor v SCIF 63 CA4 448, T/AT 5/98; BMW v Gore 517 US 559; Foley v Interactive 47 C3 654; Adams v Murakami 54 C3 105; Neal v Farmers 21 C3 910; Courtesy v Superior Court 8 CA4 1504, T/AT 11/92; Maxon v SCIF 16 CA4 1387, T/AT 9/93; Little v Stuyvesant 67 CA3 451; Finney v Lockhart 35 C2 161]