Arizona Legal Research - Malpractice punitive damages.

Arizona is in the minority on the following legal malpractice - punitive damages point.

In most states lost punitive damages are not recoverable in a subsequent legal malpractice case.  Leading proponents of this view are Illinois, California, and New York.  See  See Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 30 Cal. 4th 1037, 69 P.3d 965 (2003); Summerville v. Lipsig, 270 A.D. 2d 213, 704 N.Y.S.2d 598 (2000); Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke Bosselman & Weaver, 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1090 .  The legal theory is sound: punitive damages are awarded to punish the wrongdoer and to deter that party and others from committing similar acts; punitive damages are not awarded as compensation to the plaintiff.

Arizona and some other states are in the minority. See e.g.,  Haberer v. Rice, 511 N.W.2d 279 (S.D. 1994); Scognamillo v. Olsen, 795 P.2d 1357 (Colo. App. 1990); Elliott v. Videan, 164 Ariz. 113 (1989); and Hunt v. Dresie, 241 Kan. 647 (1987).



Not Public. This page is part of a private research subweb. It is not intended to offer information.

The pages in this research sub web are not designed for public viewing. These pages primarily are  "temporary parking places" for entry of resource notes or materials for use during field work by Bucklin.org and Corporate-Ethics.US.  Do not expect this page to be "user friendly." Furthermore, information in these pages may well be outdated because it was from a past project of some time ago.

No Legal Advice. The publisher, editor, and author do not intend this article or those to which it links to provide legal or other professional services. Attorneys using this publication in dealing with a specific legal matter should exercise their own independent judgment and should research original sources of authority and local law. For legal advice, consult an attorney.

Copyright,© 1998 through 2013, Leonard Bucklin.