Whether the Hawaii Court gravely erred when it upheld a grossly excessive punitive damages award

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A. Whether the Hawaii Court gravely erred when it upheld a grossly excessive punitive damages award against Bornemann in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution where: a. The punitive damages award of $1,642,857.13, together with post-judgment statutory interest of $1,314,285.60, totaling $2,957,142 (i) was more than 10 times the underlying 1994 Judgment against Bornemann of $253,079.29; and (ii) was not reasonably predictable in its severity in that it grossly exceeded the punitive damages awarded against Bornemann by two prior juries, a trial court and a Hawaii appellate court on the same identical issues. b. The Hawaii Supreme Court, in upholding the grossly excessive punitive damages award, wrongfully cited to, and _ relied upon, “ageravating factors” that included, and arose out of, Bornemann’s proper pursuit of his due process rights through multiple trials and appeals. Bornemann had prevailed on those appeals, requiring that his case be tried and retried over a period of many year. and c. The imposition of post judgment statutory interest of $1,314,285.60 on top of the underlying $1,642,857.13 punitive damages award almost doubled the award and_ also resulted in a de facto and unconstitutional double penalty on Bornemann. il B. Whether the Hawaii Court gravely erred when it interpreted Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) 657-5 (2001) and determined that the underlying judgment had not expired and prohibited continued collection efforts of the original September 2, 1994 Revised Final Judgment (“1994 Judgment’). Respectfully, these questions should be answered in the affirmative and certiorari granted.