Limitations on Punitive Damages Against Insurers Since State Farm v. Campbell: Lessons for Insurers
This article focuses on the limitations imposed on punitive damages awards by the United States Supreme Court, concentrating tm how these limitations have been applied by lower courts in actions against insurance companies. The article begins by examining the Supreme Court's three "guideposts" for determining whether a punitive award complies with due process. The article focuses on the compensatory damages predicate for determining a punitive award pursuant to the second "guide­ post" requiring trial courts to examine the ratio between actual and potential harm and the punitive award. The article examines what types of damages have been included in the predicate in bad-faith claims against insurers, and argues that under black-letter contract law, only the plaintiff's bad-faith tort damages should be included in the actual or potential harm side of the ratio. Finally, the article examines how the "reprehensibility" of insurers' conduct has affected punitive awards against insurers.
Taming the Tort Monster: The American Civil Justice System as a Battleground of Social Theory
doctrine. See Karl Llewellyn, Some Realism About Realism-Responding to Dean Pound, 44 HARV. L. REV. 1222, 1236-38 (1931) (presenting legal realism as "movement in thought and work about the law" within which certain points of departure are common); see also Roscoe Pound, The Call for a Realist Jurisprudence, 44 HARV. L. REV. 697, 697 (1931) (discussing approach of legal realists as requiring "faithful adherence to the actualities of the legal order as the basis of a science of law"). 8 RICHARD A. POSNER, THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 12 (1990). 69 Id. 60 Id. at 13. 61 Id. at 12. 6 Id. POSNER, supra note 58, at 12.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.