Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance
Washington Supreme Court
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
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Xieng v. Peoples National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. HoeferWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- MacKay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2014
- McKee v. AT & T CORP.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
- McKee v. AT&T Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
- Chuong Van Pham v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Chuong Van Pham v. Seattle City LightWashington Supreme Court · 2007
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.