Re: Something that is "void in law"
I've been researching damages in a civil suit - It does appear that punitive damages refer to
an intentional tort - so most med mal insurance coverages do not cover it...
Punitive is intended to punish the defendant and set an example for others. How much punitive it takes to do that would depend on the financial status of the defendant. Punitives are not to destroy somebody. Who care that insurance doesn't cover it? If you win them, the defendant pays and that is who is supposed to.
Thing is - I am finding conflicting research on when it is proper to address the financial status of a defendant. In CA - from what I can find - damages cannot be addressed during the suit.
Maybe I don't understand what you are talking about. Damages must be proven at trial. If you have a jury, damages are determined by the jury based on the facts you have given them and your argument as to why they should give you damages. Gerry Spence in his book How to Argue and Win Every Time says he gets big damage awards because he asks for them in a certain way. There are whole books in the law library on how to prove damages.
However, if plaintiff has not addressed the defendant's ability to pay damages during trial (don't know about Sum/Judgment) - then if plaintiff wins an appeal- he is barred from requesting def's financial status on appeal. This is weird - any "tips"
about this?? Thanks Katy
You can never raise new issues on appeal that you have not raised in trial court. Appellate courts are not fact finding courts; they are reviewing courts.