STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. CAMPBELL Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
tl;dr: An insurer’s bad-faith refusal to settle a claim resulted in a $145 million punitive damages award. The Supreme Court struck down the award as unconstitutionally excessive, establishing stricter due process limits on punitive damages in tort cases.
Legal Significance: This case significantly limited large punitive damages awards in tort law by strengthening the BMW v. Gore guideposts, establishing a strong presumption against punitive-to-compensatory ratios exceeding single digits, and restricting the use of a defendant’s unrelated conduct as a basis for punishment.
STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. CAMPBELL Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Curtis Campbell caused a fatal automobile accident. His insurer, State Farm, despite a high likelihood of an excess verdict, refused offers to settle the resulting tort claims for the $50,000 policy limit. State Farm assured the Campbells their assets were safe, but a jury found Campbell 100% at fault and returned a judgment of $185,849. State Farm initially refused to pay the excess liability and advised the Campbells to sell their home. The Campbells subsequently sued State Farm for the torts of bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial, the Campbells introduced extensive evidence of State Farm’s nationwide corporate policies aimed at arbitrarily reducing claim payouts, most of which were unrelated to the third-party auto claim at issue. The jury awarded the Campbells $1 million in compensatory damages for their emotional distress and $145 million in punitive damages. The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the full punitive award after the trial court had reduced it.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a $145 million punitive damages award for an insurer’s tortious bad-faith refusal to settle, where compensatory damages are $1 million, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as grossly excessive?
Yes. A punitive damages award of $145 million, which is 145 times Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a $145 million punitive damages award for an insurer’s tortious bad-faith refusal to settle, where compensatory damages are $1 million, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as grossly excessive?
Conclusion
This decision imposes significant substantive due process constraints on punitive damages in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
To ensure that punitive damages awards in tort cases are not grossly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipis
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court applied the three guideposts from *BMW v. Gore* to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Due Process Clause prohibits “grossly excessive” punitive damages that amount