Whether the factors identified by BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore should be used to analyze excessive statutory civil damages

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A Superior Court Judge in Alaska, presiding without a jury in a bench trial, imposed a $20 million judgment (principally based on treble damages under an unalleged statutory claim) against Maxim Healthcare for what was primarily a temporary (six month) lapse of coverage under a private duty nursing contract. The temporary lapse caused no death, no physical injury, no complications affecting Mr. Collens’ condition, and no loss of Medicaid benefits. This case presents four questions: 1. Whether the factors identified by BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and its progeny for evaluating punitive damages should also be used to analyze excessive statutory civil damages to ensure judgments honor the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (as recognized by a split in authority among lower courts, and as urged by scholars in the intervening twenty-three years since the Court’s opinion). 2. Where substantial compensatory damages of $4.3 million are awarded, does an award of statutory treble damages in the amount of $12.9 million offend the due process principle set forth by State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003) and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 513 (2008) that exemplary damages should not exceed a 1:1 ratio? 3. Whether rote imposition of a statutory multiplier (here, treble damages) offends the ii Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause where the court may award either $500 or $12.9 million, but nothing else, and no adjustment is allowed or possible between these two extremes, in contrast to punitive damages awards that serve a common, overlapping purpose (to punish) and that may be reduced by remittitur and are subject to due process principles established by BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and its progeny. 4. Whether analyzed under Gore or St. Louis LM. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919), the $20 million judgment imposed in this case withstands scrutiny under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where there was no death, no physical injury, no complications affecting Collens’ condition, a temporary (six month) lapse of nursing coverage, and no loss of Medicaid benefits.