Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

West Virginia Supreme Court Holds That State’s Cap On Punitive Damages Applies To Claims That Arose Before the Statute’s Effective Date

By Miriam R. Nemetz on June 30, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In 2015, West Virginia enacted a statute that caps punitive damages at the greater of $500,000 or four times the compensatory damages. We blogged about the statute here, explaining that the West Virginia legislature was seeking to reform the state’s image as a “judicial hellhole” that is hostile to defendants.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has now held, in Martinez v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., that the cap applies in cases tried after the statute’s effective date—regardless of when the conduct occurred or when the complaint was filed. The court decided the issue in response to a certified question from a federal district court. The majority reasoned that the provision “is a remedial statute that does not impact a vested or substantive right.” As the majority opinion pointed out, “[a] plaintiff has no right, much less a vested right, to an award of punitive damages before trial.” Thus, the court determined, the statute “is not subject to a retroactivity analysis,” and is “applicable irrespective of when the cause of action accrued or when the claim or suit is filed.”

Two justices wrote separately to note their view that the plainly expressed intent of the legislature also supported applying the provision to pending claims. As they saw it, in setting limits on “[t]he amount of punitive damages that may be awarded in a civil action,” the West Virginia legislature “could use no plainer language to convey to the public, litigants, and the courts that West Virginia’s outlier status with regard to unrestrained damages is … harmful to the state … and that it intends to foreclose such awards immediately.” Two justices dissented, calling the ruling a “result-oriented decision” that is “shamefully inconsistent” with “established precedent.”

The decision is very good news for defendants currently litigating claims brought under West Virginia law. Had the dissent’s view prevailed, punitive damages would remain unlimited for all claims accruing before June 8, 2015.

Photo of Miriam R. Nemetz Miriam R. Nemetz

Miriam Nemetz is a member of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D. C. office. Miriam has briefed dozens of cases in state and federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has argued before the US Courts…

Miriam Nemetz is a member of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D. C. office. Miriam has briefed dozens of cases in state and federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has argued before the US Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Second, Sixth and Seventh Circuits. Miriam handles a wide variety of appeals but has developed specialized expertise in cases involving punitive damages and employment-related claims. Since 2009, Miriam has been selected by her peers every year for inclusion in The Best Lawyers In America in the specialty of Appellate Law. She is a co-author of Mayer Brown’s Federal Appellate Practice treatise, published by BNA Books in December 2008.

Read Miriam’s full bio.

Read more about Miriam R. NemetzEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    Guideposts
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo