In Davis v. Blast Properties, Inc., the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the standard trial courts should apply when deciding whether to grant a party leave to seek punitive damages. The Court held that trial courts are not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing, but trial courts are required to conduct “a careful examination of the evidence” and determine whether there is a “reasonable probability” that the evidence submitted is (1) admissible at trial, and (2) sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.
The issue. Idaho Code § 6-1604 prohibits a party from including a request for punitive damages in a complaint. A party, instead, must file a pretrial motion seeking permission to amend the complaint to add a request for punitive damages.
Trial courts have taken two different approaches to deciding when to grant leave. Some trial courts have interpreted Idaho Code § 6-1604 as requiring the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing, make credibility determinations, and decide how likely the movant is to obtain punitive damages at trial. Other trial courts have interpreted the statute as requiring the Court to view all evidence in the movant’s favor and determine whether a reasonable jury could award punitive damages.
A federal court certified a question of law to the Idaho Supreme Court to resolve that conflict, and the Court rephrased the issue to: “What is the proper means for a trial court to comply with its obligations under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) when ruling upon a motion to amend a complaint or counterclaim to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages?”
The result. The Court held that Idaho Code § 6-1604(2) does not require a trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make credibility determinations. Instead, a trial court needs to consider only whether the moving party has submitted evidence that is (1) admissible at trial and (2) sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.
To assess whether the evidence submitted is admissible at trial, the trial court must apply the rules of evidence. No additional or special analysis is required.
To assess whether the evidence submitted at trial is sufficient to support an award of punitive damages, a trial court must consider (1) whether the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages is “legally cognizable” and (2) whether there is “substantial” evidence supporting the request for punitive damages. The “legally cognizable” standard is akin to determining whether the movant has properly alleged all the elements of a claim. The substantial evidence standard is akin to the standard courts apply when deciding motions for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment of law.
Practice Pointers:
- Idaho law prohibits a party from requesting punitive damages in a complaint. If a litigant prematurely seeks punitive damages against your client, you should consider moving to strike the request.
- If your client intends to seek punitive damages, remember to allow time for pretrial motion practice—especially if a deadline is not included in the scheduling order.