The 6th Circuit has just decided, for the second time, Bach v First Union National Bank. I was very surprised to see the court of appeals cut the punitive damages awarded by an obviously outraged jury from $2.6 million down to $400,000. Ms.Bach obvious had a good case for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against the bank because the jury awarded her $400,000 in damages. Equally obvious is the fact that she was treated maliciously by the bank as the jury also gave her punitive damages of $2.6 million. What is surprising is that the 6th Circuit took what I think is very extraordinary action. It reduced the jury’s award of punitive damages of $2.6 million down to $400,000. The court reasoned that there were not enough aggravating factors to support a $2.6 million award. I think differently. I think that it took an incredible amount of nerve for the court to second guess a jury verdict based upon days and days of testimony and deliberation.
So why did the court really reduce a punitive damages verdict to 1/6th of its original value? I don’t know. But I can tell you that courts are usually very reticent to supplant a jury verdict for their own. I do have to wonder, however, is this an omen of things to come in consumer litigation in our jurisdiction? Should consumers and their attorneys worry about whether this decision was simply a rogue opinion or is it the beginning of trend that will tend to route consumer rights? Time will tell.