Legal Opinion

Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 2016No. B234271APublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ALDRICH, J.

INTRODUCTION

The sole issue raised by both parties to this appeal concerns the punitive damage award; specifically, whether the trial court’s remittitur of that award from $19 million to $350,000, based on a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages of 10 to one, comports with due process. Thomas Nickerson sued Stonebridge Life Insurance Company (Stonebridge) challenging the insurer’s partial denial of his claim for hospitalization benefits. The trial court ruled that a policy provision limiting coverage was not conspicuous, plain, and clear and was therefore unenforceable,…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Exxon Shipping Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Egan v. Mutual of Omaha InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Brandt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mazik v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. Contreras-Velazquez v. Family Health Centers of San Diego, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2021
  3. Contreras-Velazquez v. Family Health Centers of San Diego, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2021
  4. Hoffman v. Sonoma Specialty Hospital, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2021
  5. In re E.P.California Court of Appeal · 2018

8 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