CENTURY SURETY COMPANY v. CHARLES A. POLISSO
Filed 5/22/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. CHARLES A. POLISSO et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. | C045334
(Super. Ct. No. 98ASO1461)
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Lloyd A. Phillips, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Chapman, Popik & White, Susan M. Popik, David Nied, Merri A. Baldwin; Bonetati, Sasaki, Kincaid & Kincaid, Marilyn L. Bonetati, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
Bolling, Walter & Gawthrop, Theodore D. Bolling, Jr., Marjorie E. Manning; Farmer, Murphy, Smith & Alliston, George E. Murphy and Suzanne M. Nicholson, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
Story Continued From Part IV ………
As noted, Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d) requires that evidence of the defendant's financial condition be presented to the same trier of fact that found defendant guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. The courts have long recognized that the defendant's financial condition is an essential factor in setting the amount of a punitive damage award that will be sufficient to serve the goals of retribution and deterrence without exceeding the necessary level of punishment. (Adams v. Murikami, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 110-112.) This is because a punitive damage award â€
