MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Broeker
MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Delmar BROEKER and Barbara Broeker, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below)
Opinion
OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING SULLIVAN, Judge.
Miller ' Pipeline Corporation appealed from an adverse jury verdict awarding $75,000 punitive damages. In our decision of February 27, 1984, we reversed the award, holding that conduct for which punitive damages may be awarded must demonstrate malice or an equivalent state of mind and that a heedless disregard of the consequences, absent an oppressive or malicious state of mind, was insufficient to justify such an award. Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker (2d Dist.1984) Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 177, 185 .
On petition for rehearing, the Broekers, pursuant to Appellate Rule 8.4(B) have filed additional authority in support of the punitive damages award, to-wit: Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Charles Traina and Michelle Traina (4th Dist.1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 693 . Orkin was decided one month after our decision in Miller Pipeline, supra. It holds that wilful or wanton misconduct alone will support an award of punitive damages.
We acknowledge that Orkin's specification of the conduct necessary to an award of punitive damages contemplates something considerably less than the malice standard we enunciated in Miller Pipeline, and as such, constitutes a direct contradiction. However, we believe Orkin incorrectly states the law and decline the invitation to adopt its rationale in preference to our decision of February 27, 1984.
Accordingly we deny rehearing.
SHIELDS, J., concurs.
MILLER, J. (participating by designation), concurs in result.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.