5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 670
St. Louis Park, MN 55416   [map]
p) 952.767.0198
e)

• Alleging Punitive Damages in Minnesota

In Minnesota, entitlement to punitive damage claims is governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 549.191 and 549.20.  Both statutes outline the process by which a litigant may seek punitive damages in Minnesota courts, as well as describe the proof necessary to sustain this claim.  This article addresses the two-step process necessary to plead a claim of punitive damages, outlining generally both the procedure plaintiffs must follow as well as the substantive proof necessary to successfully amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.

A. The Procedure Governing Punitive Damage Claims.

The time at which plaintiffs may seek to add a claim of punitive damages to the complaint is governed by Minn. Stat. § 549.191, which states:

Upon commencement of a civil action, the complaint must not seek punitive damages. After filing the suit a party may make a motion to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages.  The motion must allege the applicable legal basis under section 549.20 or other law for awarding punitive damages in the action and must be accompanied by one or more affidavits showing the factual basis for the claim.  At the hearing on the motion, the court shall grant the moving party permission to amend the pleadings to claim punitive damages. For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, pleadings amended under this section relate back to the time the action was commenced.

Minn. Stat. § 549.191 (2008).  By its plain language, the statute precludes plaintiffs from alleging punitive damages in their initial pleading.  Rather, plaintiffs must instead bring a motion to amend the complaint if they wish to seek punitive damages against a defendant.

This two-step pleading process assumes parties to the litigation will first perform discovery to begin to establish the facts of the case. At that point, the parties (and the court) can then evaluate the anticipated trial testimony in deciding whether the conduct at issue is sufficiently egregious to warrant a claim of punitive damages.  If a plaintiff believes the law should punish the defendant for his or her conduct, the plaintiff may move the court to amend the complaint to add a claim of punitive damages to the lawsuit.

In considering a motion to amend the complaint, the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 549.191 requires proof of an entitlement to punitive damages “by one or more affidavits showing the factual basis for the claim.”  In other words, mere allegations in a proposed amended complaint are insufficient; rather, plaintiffs must put forth evidence by way of sworn testimony.

B.            A “Deliberate Disregard for the Rights or Safety of Others.”

In order to establish a prima facie claim for punitive damages, plaintiffs must show that a particular defendant acted with a “deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.”  Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a).  The statute then defines “deliberate disregard” as follows:

(b) A defendant has acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others and:

 

(1) Deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability of injury to the rights or safety of others; or

 

(2) Deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others.

Id. at subd. 1(b).  Courts have summarized the above definition by stating, “A defendant operates with ‘deliberate disregard’ by acting with intent or indifference to threaten the rights or safety of others.” Gamma-10 Plastics, Inc. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 32 F.3d 1244, 1256 (8^th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added).

As to the quantity and quality of evidence necessary to successful seek punitive damages, a trial court cannot allow an amendment where the motion and supporting affidavits, even if unrebutted, do not provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with an intentional and deliberate disregard.  Swanlund v. Shimano Industry Corp., Ltd., 459 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 5, 1990).  To meet the “clear and convincing” threshold, plaintiffs must present evidence allowing a jury to conclude that it is “highly probable” that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights of the plaintiff.  Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing, & Engineering Co., 401 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Minn. 1987).

Summarizing, Minnesota law prohibits plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages in an initial complaint.  Procedurally, plaintiffs must ask the court for permission to allege punitive damages by bringing a motion to amend the complaint after the parties have conducted discovery to establish the sworn, admissible testimony in the lawsuit.  Whether the motion is granted involves a thorough analysis of whether the testimony establishes, clearly and convincingly, that a particular defendant acted with a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.

« Return to news postings