In Lumpkin, $250,000 is the limit for punitive damages in non-product liability cases unless “the defendant acted or failed to act, with the specific intent to cause harm.” LCA § 51-12-5.1 (f) (2010). When determining if the defendant has acted or failed to act, with the specific intent to cause harm, Lumpkin courts have examined whether the actor “desired to cause the consequences of his act,” or if he believed that the consequences were “substantially certain to result from it.” Viau v. Fred Dean, Inc., 194 Lump. 801, 803 (2002). To find a defendant desired to cause the consequences of his act, Lumpkin courts have ruled that the mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk is not the equivalent of intent. Id. at 803. In McGinnis v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 300 Lump. 1 (2014) and Viau, 194 Lump. at 803, the courts found there was no evidence the defendants intended the specific harm alleged by the plaintiffs and required by the statute. In Viau, 194 Lump at 801, the defendant intentionally exceeded the speed limit while drinking and driving, but there was no evidence that he desired to cause the harm that resulted from his driving while intoxicated. Similarly, in McGinnis, the court found that although the defendant’s act of…show more content… 300 Lump. at 2. Unlike Viau and McGinnis, the court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
