Legal Opinion

Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1996No. 63533-1PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDolliver, J.

— Since its earliest decisions, this court has consistently disapproved punitive damages as contrary to public policy. See Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. Hoefer, 2 Wash. 45, 50-56, 25 P. 1072 (1891). Punitive damages not only impose on the defendant a penalty generally reserved for criminal sanctions, but also award the plaintiff with a windfall beyond full compensation. See Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Dep’t, 119 Wn.2d 178, 188, 829 P.2d 1061 (1992). Particularly in the case of workplace discrimination, the Legislature has assured a plaintiff may -"become whole” through a full panoply of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Xieng v. Peoples National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. HoeferWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  5. MacKay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2014
  2. McKee v. AT & T CORP.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. McKee v. AT&T Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Chuong Van Pham v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Chuong Van Pham v. Seattle City LightWashington Supreme Court · 2007

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API