In this dispute over a
commercial lease, a jury awarded $49,100 in compensatory damages and $300,000
in punitive damages, based on a claim of “intentional interference with
premises.” The trial court struck the punitive damages award on the
ground that the conduct at issue involved only a breach of contract, not a
tort, and therefore could not support any tort remedies, including punitive
damages.
In a published opinion, the California Court of Appeal
(Second Appellate District, Division Eight) affirmed: “Ginsberg
essentially argues that Gamson maliciously breached the contract, and asserts
Gamson’s evil motive for breaching her contractual duties warranted imposition
of tort remedies. It did not.”
Justice Breyer presiding
1 hour ago
