Exemplary Damages. The Parties waive their rights to claim or recover, and the arbitral tribunal shall not award, any punitive, multiple, or other exemplary damages (whether statutory or common law) except to the extent such damages have been awarded to a third party and are subject to allocation between or among the parties to the Dispute.
Exemplary Damages. A claim for exemplary damages was pleaded. The para (10) of the Notice of counter-claim is in these terms;
Exemplary Damages. Section 2 covers the Insured’s liability for exemplary damages in New Zealand for bodily injury. There is no cover under this extension for liability arising from any dishonest or malicious act or omission by the Insured. The maximum the Insurer will pay any one claim or series of claims arising from one accident is the amount specified in the schedule. In respect of all claims during the period of insurance, the maximum amount that will be paid is the amount specified in the schedule. The excess stated in the schedule applies to this extension. Exclusion 2.3 and General Condition 2.4 does not apply to this extension.
Exemplary Damages. Section 2 is extended to indemnify the insured against liability for punitive or exemplary damages arising from:
Exemplary Damages. The claimant’s submissions:
Exemplary Damages. The most we will pay for punitive or exemplary damages is $250,000 for any event. SETTLEMENT OF ANY CLAIM We may pay the sum insured under this Section of the policy, or any lesser amount that the legal liability can be settled for plus defence costs to date, and this will meet all our obligations under this Section of the policy. POLICY EXCLUSIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL PARTS OF THIS POLICY CONFISCATION You are not insured for loss or legal liability connected in any way with confiscation, acquisition, loss or damage by order of government, public or local authority, unless that order was for the purpose of preventing or reducing pollution arising from loss to your craft insured by this policy. EXCESS For each event, the excess will be deducted from the amount of your claim unless stated otherwise under an Additional Benefit. Where an event occurs that results in a claim under more than one section or benefit (or sub-section of a benefit) of this policy, we will apply only the highest applicable excess. INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS ACTS You are not insured for any loss or legal liability arising from any intentional or reckless act or omission. LOSS OF ELECTRONIC DATA You are not insured for loss or legal liability in any way connected with loss of or damage to electronic data and any liability arising from this, directly or indirectly caused by, or in connection with a computer virus. This includes loss of use, reduction in functionality or any other associated loss or expense in connection with the electronic data. LOSSES NOT INSURED You are not insured for loss or legal liability:
Exemplary Damages. The plaintiffs found their claim for exemplary damages on an allegation that the Council acted unreasonably towards them, and disregarded or was heedless of their welfare. They allege that the Council in acting in the way it did was motivated by malice and that it preferred the interests of Xx Xxxx. The object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter the wrongdoer, not to compensate the person upon whom the harm was inflicted. In Xxxxxx x Xxxxx [1982] 1 NZLR 81, 93 Xxxxxx J said that up until 1964 (when the House of Lords delivered its judgment in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC1129) the circumstances in which such damages were appropriate could be stated with confidence. He referred to Xxxxx and XxXxxxxx on damages (12th ed, 1961) B196: “[Exemplary damages] can apply only where the conduct of the defendant merits punishment which is only to be considered to be so where his conduct is wanton as where it discloses fraud, malice, violence, cruelty, insolence or the like or as it is sometimes put, where he acts in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” In Xxxxxx the Court of Appeal declined to accept the three categories of cases in respect of which the House of Lords stated exemplary damages could be granted. So the general approach as described in Xxxxx and XxXxxxxx remains applicable. There are two further areas of potential difficulty if the facts of the case were otherwise to justify an award of exemplary damages. The first is whether liability for exemplary damages should be restricted to torts of intention or whether it can be extended to cases of negligence. The judgment of Tipping J in McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville [1996] 3NZLR 424 indicates that it can be, but the issue may not yet be free from doubt. The second is whether it is appropriate for an employer to be held vicariously liable in respect of a tort giving rise to a personal liability by an employee to pay exemplary damages. Having regard to the view I take of the facts in this case, I do not find it necessary to decide either of these issues. Xx Xxxxxx submitted that there were three aspects of the Council’s conduct which called for condemnation. They were the failure by Xx Xxxxx to take immediate steps in November 1993, on becoming aware of the Council’s error, to bring that error to the plaintiffs’ attention. The second was the failure of the Council to bring to the plaintiffs’ notice the problem prior to the service of the stopwork notice. The third was what he described as...
Exemplary Damages. This policy does not insure liability for punitive or exemplary damages. Note: Please see Section 2: Automatic Extensions, ‘C – Exemplary Damages’.
Exemplary Damages. [142] In my judgment, the claimant was also entitled to significant exemplary damages. Each article advertised the fact that the “SAGA” continued the following week. There were articles which stretched over a period of five weeks. The claimant was thus subjected to the oppression of these allegations over a protracted period of five Sundays. He sought an apology after the first article which was ignored and the series continued. [143] Much of the contents of the articles were repeated over the five week period. In many respects, the continued publication after three weeks was unnecessary. All that could have been said had already been said after three weeks. In my judgment, the articles were extended as a means of boosting sales on a matter which had generated great interest among members of the public. There was the clear intention that the series should attract and keep the reading public’s attention thereby boosting sales. Some articles were given prominence with banner headlines. The articles were written in a sensational style with eye-catching headlines. I considered that the quantum of exemplary damages should have reflected the court’s concern for what was seen as revenue earning opportunity at the claimant’s expense. The claimant was entitled to have his reputation vindicated as far as possible. I thus awarded exemplary damages in the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00).
