60-3703. Filing an amended pleading to claim punitive damages. No tort claim or reference to a tort claim for punitive damages shall be included in a petition or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to K.S.A. 60-209, and amendments thereto. The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed on or before the date of the final pretrial conference held in the matter.
History: L. 1988, ch. 209, § 4; L. 1992, ch. 307, § 4; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 33; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Arbitration Agreements After Volt and Browning-Ferris," Leo P. Dreyer, 38 K.L.R. 667, 704 (1990).
"Oil and Gas Law: Using Tort Law to Police Oil and Gas Operations [Marshall v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 874 F.2d 1373 (10 th Cir. 1989)]," Heather L. Osterhaus, 30 W.L.J. 163, 169 (1990).
"Putting Punitive Damages in Perspective," Steven M. Dickson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XV, No. 3, 6, 7 (1992).
"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18 (1993).
"Removal to Federal Court: The Practitioner's Tightrope," Charles W. Hyland, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 22, 27 (1994).
"A Pragmatic Approach to the Eighth Amendment and Punitive Damages," Stephen R. McAllister, 43 K.L.R. 761, 780, 781 (1995).
"A Primer on Punitive Damages in Kansas," Paul W. Rebein, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 22, 27 (1995).
"Caveat plaintiff: Congress has defederalized private securities litigation," Steven A. Ramirez, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 16 (1998).
"The Kansas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act," Leon B. Graves, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 6, 34 (1999).
"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part I," William E. Westerbeke and Stephen R. McAllister, 49 K.L.R. 1037 (2001).
"Comparison of Federal and State Court Practice," David G. Seely, Charles E. Millsap and Ron Campbell, 75 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 28 (2006).
"Whose Award Is It Anyway?: Implications of Awarding the Entire Sum of Punitive Damages to the State," Kelly-Rose Garrity, 45 W.L.J. 395 (2006).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statute applied retroactively; does not override federal procedural rules. NAL II, Ltd. v. Tonkin, 705 F. Supp. 522, 526, 527 (D. Kan. 1988).
2. Denial of motion to amend petition examined where court found no probability plaintiff could prevail on punitive damages claim. Herbstreith v. de Bakker, 249 Kan. 67, 72, 815 P.2d 102 (1991).
3. Trial court's decision following plaintiff's case regarding pretrial motion for punitive damages claim examined. Glynos v. Jagoda, 249 Kan. 473, 486, 819 P.2d 1202 (1991).
4. Motion to strike claim for punitive damages denied; statute purely procedural. Comeau v. Rupp, 762 F. Supp. 1434, 1449 (1991).
5. Failure to follow specific procedure herein will result in denial of motion to amend. Sullwood v. Barcus, 17 Kan. App. 2d 410, 417, 838 P.2d 908 (1992).
6. Remanded for determination whether evidence could reasonably support jury verdict for punitive damages. Fusaro v. First Family Mtg. Corp., 17 Kan. App. 2d 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 843 P.2d 737 (1992).
7. While motion to plead punitive damages required prior to pretrial conference, ruling can be made at anytime. Burrowwood Assocs., Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp., 18 Kan. App. 2d 396, 397, 853 P.2d 1175 (1993).
8. Whether trial court's summary ability to permit or deny submission of a punitive damages claim is constitutional examined; whether trial court erred by not allowing party to amend counterclaim to include punitive damages claim examined. McConwell v. FMG of Kansas City, Inc., 18 Kan. App. 2d 839, 859, 861 P.2d 830 (1993).
9. When federal court in diversity action should apply state statute regarding amending claim to include punitive damages examined. Whittenburg v. L.J. Holding Co., 830 F. Supp. 557, 566 (1993).
10. Whether punitive damages may be awarded in action to set aside fraudulent conveyance examined. Golconda Screw, Inc. v. West Bottoms Ltd., 20 Kan. App. 2d 1002, 894 P.2d 260 (1995).
11. Factors trial court must consider before allowing plaintiff to amend claim to include punitive damages discussed. Fusaro v. First Family Mtg. Corp., 257 Kan. 794, 801, 803, 897 P.2d 123 (1995).
12. Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to amend petition to add punitive damages claim. Moore v. Associated Materials & Supply Co., 263 Kan. 226, 246, 948 P.2d 652 (1997).
13. Court may grant reasonable time for supporting affidavit to be filed upon good cause. Logan v. Logan, 23 Kan. App. 2d 920, 932, 937 P.2d 967 (1997).
14. Class action members may aggregate punitive damages in determining controversy amount if members have common, undivided right to punitive damages. Amundson & Assoc. Art v. Nat. Council on Comp. Ins., 977 F. Supp. 1116, 1126 (1997).
15. Evidence supported jury's decision to award punitive damages in KCPA (K.S.A. 50-621 et seq.) fraud action. York v. InTrust Bank, N.A., 265 Kan. 271, 306, 962 P.2d 405 (1998).
16. New trial on punitive damages ordered where trial court ruled verified petition contained sufficient information to constitute affidavit. George v. Capital South Mtg. Investments, Inc., 265 Kan. 431, 440, 961 P.2d 32 (1998).
17. No abuse of discretion in granting motion to amend petition to include punitive damages against one defendant but not another. Calver v. Hinson, 267 Kan. 369, 378, 982 P.2d 970 (1999).
18. No error in trial court's denial of motion to amend petition to claim punitive damages. Lindsey v. Miami County National Bank, 267 Kan. 685, 693, 984 P.2d 719 (1999).
19. Diversity action plaintiffs were not required to follow state punitive damages pleading statutes. Schnuelle v. C & C Auto Sales, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (2000).
20. Plaintiff may amend petition to include claim for punitive damages. Wright v. Bachmurski, 29 Kan. App. 2d 595, 29 P.3d 979 (2001).
21. Plaintiffs in diversity action were not required to obtain court order to amend pleading to add punitive damages claim. Vance ex rel. Wood v. Midwest Coast Transport, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1090 (2004).
22. Punitive damages appeal affirmed from appellant who acted with fraud. Wilson v. Wilson, 37 Kan. App. 2d 564, 565, 577, 578, 579, 154 P.3d 1136 (2007).
23. Motion upheld to seek punitive damages after the initial case management order. Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan. App. 2d 623, 624, 630, 631, 155 P.3d 1196 (2007).
24. District court erred in denying motion to amend petition to include punitive damages relating to drug use. Adamson v. Bicknell, 41 Kan. App. 2d 958, 207 P.3d 265 (2009).
25. Any procedural irregularity in mortgagor's amendment of counterclaims to request punitive damages did not prejudice particular mortgagee. Bank of America v. Narula, 46 Kan. App. 2d 142, 261 P.3d 898 (2011).
|
|