Arizona Punitive Damages Laws: No General Cap, Evil Mind Rule (2026)

Arizona allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy: under Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986), the Arizona Supreme Court held they are awardable "only upon clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's evil mind." No Arizona statute sets a general cap on punitive damages, and two clauses of the Arizona Constitution (article 2, section 31 and article 18, section 6) forbid laws limiting the amount of damages for death or injury; statutes do bar or limit punitive damages for particular defendants and claims, including public entities and employees (A.R.S. 12-820.04), government-compliant drugs and products (12-701, 12-689) and electric utilities in wildfire cases (40-1304(F)).

No general Arizona statute gives the state a share of a private plaintiff's punitive award. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Arizona state law on punitive damages in civil cases: the common-law standard set by the Arizona Supreme Court, the constitutional provisions on damages limits, and the statutes and decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages (see Arizona medical malpractice law for malpractice claims), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Arizona wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Arizona allow punitive damages?

Yes. Punitive damages in Arizona are a court-made remedy. Arizona has no general punitive damages statute that sets a conduct standard, a burden of proof, a cap, a state share or a bifurcation rule; those questions are answered by the courts, and the legislature has addressed punitive damages only for particular defendants and claims.

The Arizona Supreme Court described the remedy in Linthicum as one "only to be awarded in the most egregious of cases, where there is reprehensible conduct combined with an evil mind over and above that required for commission of a tort."

What must be proven: an evil mind, by clear and convincing evidence

The conduct. Linthicum requires more than the conduct that makes a defendant liable for the tort itself:

"In whatever way the requisite mental state is expressed, the conduct must also be aggravated and outrageous. It is conscious action of a reprehensible character. The key is the wrongdoer's intent to injure the plaintiff or his deliberate interference with the rights of others, consciously disregarding the unjustifiably substantial risk of significant harm to them."

The burden of proof. The same opinion set a higher standard of proof than the ordinary civil standard: "we conclude that recovery of punitive damages should be awardable only upon clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's evil mind." The court explained that because the remedy is reserved for the most egregious cases, "it is appropriate to impose a more stringent standard of proof."

Negligence cases. In Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona v. Carman (2022), a case arising from a tractor-trailer crash, the Arizona Supreme Court restated the rule: an evil mind requires "clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions either (1) intended to cause harm, (2) were motivated by spite, or (3) were outrageous, creating a 'substantial risk of tremendous harm to others.'" It held that in a negligence action a plaintiff "generally must show that the defendant's conduct was 'outrageous, oppressive or intolerable,' and 'create[d] [a] substantial risk of tremendous harm,'" and noted that its cases "have repeatedly stated that courts may not award punitive damages based on mere negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness."

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Arizona?

There is no general cap. No Arizona statute sets a general dollar limit or ratio for punitive damages, and two constitutional provisions restrict damages limits generally.

Article 2, section 31 of the Arizona Constitution provides:

"No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense."

Article 18, section 6 adds that "the right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation," with the same crime-victim exception.

The absence of a general cap rests on two things: no statute imposes one, and the constitutional text forbids laws limiting the amount of damages for death or injury. The Arizona Supreme Court decisions cited on this page do not address whether those two clauses reach punitive damages specifically, so this page does not describe a court holding on that point. The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Arizona verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Claim-specific limits. Some statutes for particular claims set their own measure:

• Trade secret misappropriation. "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection A" (A.R.S. 44-403(B)).
• State hazardous-substance claims. A responsible party who fails without sufficient cause to provide remedial action on the director's order "may be liable to this state for punitive damages in an amount up to three times the amount of any costs incurred by the director as a result of the failure to take proper action" (A.R.S. 49-287(J)). This is the State's own claim, not a share of a private award.
• A minimum, not a maximum. In a homeowner's action against a foreclosure consultant under A.R.S. 44-1378.05, if the homeowner prevails, "the punitive damages shall be at least one and one-half times the amount awarded to the homeowner as actual damages."

Does Arizona take a share of the award?

No general Arizona statute diverts any part of a private plaintiff's punitive award to the state or a fund. The one statute that sends punitive damages to the State is A.R.S. 49-287(J), where the State itself is the party recovering them from a responsible party that failed to carry out ordered remedial action.

Defendants and claims Arizona statutes protect

Public entities and public employees. A.R.S. 12-820.04 provides: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for punitive or exemplary damages." A related insurance statute, A.R.S. 41-621(L), provides that the state and its departments, agencies, boards and commissions "are immune from liability for losses arising out of a judgment for wilful and wanton conduct resulting in punitive or exemplary damages."

Drugs approved by the FDA. Under A.R.S. 12-701(A), the manufacturer or seller of a drug "is not liable for exemplary or punitive damages" if the drug was manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects according to a federal Food and Drug Administration approval or license, or is generally recognized as safe and effective under FDA conditions. The protection does not apply "if the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant, either before or after making the drug available for public use, knowingly, in violation of applicable federal food and drug administration regulations, withheld from or misrepresented to the administration information known to be material and relevant to the harm which the plaintiff allegedly suffered" (12-701(B)).

Products and services that complied with government standards. A.R.S. 12-689(A) provides that a manufacturer, service provider or seller "is not liable for exemplary or punitive damages" if the product was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold or represented in relevant and material respects according to a government agency's approval, clearance, license or similar determination, or if the product, activity or service complied with the relevant statutes or agency standards when it left the defendant's control. Under 12-689(B), the protection does not apply if the claimant establishes that the defendant, before the harm, sold the product after a final agency order removing it from the market, intentionally withheld from or misrepresented to the agency material information in violation of applicable regulations as determined by final agency action, made an illegal payment to an agency official or employee, or knowingly violated applicable risk-reporting regulations where the unreported information was material and relevant to the harm.

Product safety reviews. Under A.R.S. 12-687(3), a plaintiff "may not use the product safety analysis or review or the reasonable remedial measures to prove conduct that would subject the person or entity that caused the product safety analysis or review to be performed to punitive or exemplary damages, unless the plaintiff establishes that the analysis or review, or the reasonable remedial measures, were undertaken in bad faith or solely for the purpose of affecting the litigation instituted by the plaintiff."

Electric utilities and wildfires. In an action against an electric utility for damages resulting from a wildfire, "neither exemplary nor punitive damages of any kind may be recovered" (A.R.S. 40-1304(F)). The exception applies only to a utility that is not an electric cooperative, only after its liability for personal injury or bodily harm from the wildfire is established, and only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the utility's conduct was both "outrageous, oppressive or intolerable" and "consciously pursued knowingly or with intentional disregard that the conduct created a substantial risk of significant physical injury to others."

Farm nuisance suits. In a nuisance action against an agricultural operation conducted on farmland, the court "may not award punitive damages" unless the nuisance came from an operation that has been subject to a criminal conviction or a civil enforcement action by a state or federal environmental or health regulatory agency pursuant to a notice of violation for the conduct alleged (A.R.S. 3-112(C)(3)).

Persons present in violation of federal improper-entry law. Article 2, section 35 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. 12-512 in the same words, provide: "A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state." A 2025 legislative proposal, HCR 2006, would change "federal immigration law" to "any federal immigration law." A proposed amendment is not law; the text quoted above is the current text.

Organ-transplant discrimination. A.R.S. 36-850.02(D) provides that the section "does not create a right to compensatory or punitive damages against a health care provider or health care facility."

Statutes that authorize punitive or exemplary damages

Intercepted communications. A person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of title 13, chapter 30 of the Arizona Revised Statutes may bring a civil action that includes "punitive damages in appropriate cases" (A.R.S. 12-731(A)(3)).

Trafficking of persons. A claimant who prevails under A.R.S. 12-722, the trafficking civil liability statute, "shall be awarded actual damages, including damages for mental anguish even if an injury other than mental anguish is not shown, court costs and reasonable attorney fees" and, in addition, "may recover exemplary damages" (12-722(E)).

Publications and broadcasts. Under A.R.S. 12-653.03, which addresses a failure to publish or broadcast a correction, a plaintiff may recover general, special and exemplary damages, "but no exemplary damages may be recovered unless the plaintiff proves that defendant made the publication or broadcast with actual malice and then only in the discretion of the court or jury." For the underlying claims, see Arizona defamation laws.

Abuse, neglect or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. In a civil action under A.R.S. 46-455 against a person or enterprise employed or appointed to provide care, "[t]he court or jury may order the payment of punitive damages under common law principles that are generally applicable to the award of punitive damages in other civil actions" (46-455(H)(4)). The right to bring the action "shall not be limited or affected by the death of the vulnerable adult" (46-455(P)).

Arbitration. An arbitrator "may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim" (A.R.S. 12-3021(A)). An arbitrator who awards them must specify the factual and legal basis for the award and state the punitive amount separately (12-3021(E)).

Employer liability for punitive damages

In Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. of Tucson, 152 Ariz. 309 (1987), the Arizona Supreme Court said Arizona has rejected the Restatement rule "in favor of a rule allowing punitive damages against an employer for acts of its employees 'so long as committed in the furtherance of the employer's business and acting within the scope of employment.'"

The same decision held that "[w]here no punitive damages have been awarded against an employee, no punitive damages can be vicariously imputed to the employer," unless there is an independent ground for the employer's own liability, such as its own negligence.

Punitive damages in Arizona wrongful death cases

Arizona has no statute that addresses punitive damages in wrongful death cases by name. The wrongful death damages statute, A.R.S. 12-613, directs the jury to give damages "as it deems fair and just with reference to the injury resulting from the death to the surviving parties who may be entitled to recover, and also having regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the wrongful act, neglect or default."

The survival statute, A.R.S. 14-3110, provides that most causes of action survive the death of the person entitled to bring them "or liable therefor," so they may be asserted by or against a personal representative, "provided that upon the death of the person injured, damages for pain and suffering of such injured person shall not be allowed." Its text does not mention punitive damages, but in Quintero v. Rodgers (App. 2009) the Arizona Court of Appeals held "that actions for punitive damages survive the death of the plaintiff as well as the death of the tortfeasor." Who may bring a death claim, and the deadlines, are on the Arizona wrongful death page.

How the amount is decided and reviewed

Financial-condition discovery. In Larriva v. Montiel, 143 Ariz. 23 (App. 1984), the Arizona Court of Appeals (Division Two) required a plaintiff "to make a prima facie showing that he will be entitled to present the issue of punitive damages to the jury before discovery should be allowed in the financial area," adding that "[t]his can be done through discovery, by evidentiary means or through an offer of proof." In Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona v. Carman (2022), the Arizona Supreme Court held that "to make such a showing in a negligence case, a plaintiff must establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the punitive damages claim will be submitted to the jury."

Separate trials. No Arizona statute requires a separate punitive damages phase.

Appeal bonds. The bond needed to stay execution of a judgment during appeal is set at the lesser of the total damages awarded "excluding punitive damages," 50% of the appellant's net worth, or $25 million (A.R.S. 12-2108(A)).

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Arizona?

It can. In Price v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 108 Ariz. 485 (1972), the Arizona Supreme Court held that public policy did not bar coverage where the policy covered the insured's liability: "the premium has been paid and accepted and the protection has been tendered, and that under the circumstances public policy would be best served by requiring the insurance company to honor its obligation." The court quoted with approval a treatise passage noting that a policy could expressly exclude liability arising from wilful and wanton acts and that a court should not aid an insurer that fails to exclude liability for punitive damages.

Arizona punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

Arizona's general punitive damages standard comes from Arizona Supreme Court decisions rather than a statute, most recently Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona v. Carman (2022), which restated the evil-mind test for negligence cases. In 2025 the legislature enacted A.R.S. 40-1304 (Laws 2025, ch. 167, HB 2201, approved May 12, 2025), which bars punitive damages in wildfire actions against electric utilities except as described above. The pending item is HCR 2006 (2025), a proposal to widen the article 2, section 35 bar from "federal immigration law" to "any federal immigration law"; it is not law.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• Arizona wrongful death law
• Arizona medical malpractice law
• Arizona defamation laws

This article provides general legal information about Arizona punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Arizona.

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Arizona allow punitive damages?

Yes. Arizona courts award punitive damages at common law, but only on clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's evil mind and aggravated, outrageous conduct (Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 1986). Statutes bar them against public entities and employees acting within the scope of employment and limit them for some defendants and claims.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Arizona?

No general cap. No Arizona statute sets one, and Ariz. Const. art. 2 s. 31 and art. 18 s. 6 forbid laws limiting the amount of damages for death or injury. Some statutes for particular claims set their own measure, for example exemplary damages of up to twice any award under subsection A for willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation (A.R.S. 44-403(B)).

What is the standard for punitive damages in Arizona?

The plaintiff must prove an evil mind by clear and convincing evidence, and the conduct must be aggravated and outrageous, showing an intent to injure or deliberate interference with the rights of others while consciously disregarding an unjustifiably substantial risk of significant harm (Linthicum, 1986).

Does Arizona take part of a punitive damages award?

No general Arizona statute diverts part of a private plaintiff's punitive award to the state. Under A.R.S. 49-287(J), the State itself may recover punitive damages of up to three times the director's costs from a responsible party that fails to carry out ordered remedial action.

Are punitive damages available against the government in Arizona?

No. A.R.S. 12-820.04 provides that neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of employment is liable for punitive or exemplary damages.

Are punitive damages available in an Arizona wrongful death case?

No Arizona statute addresses punitive damages in wrongful death cases by name. A.R.S. 12-613 directs the jury to award damages it deems fair and just, having regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the wrongful act. In Quintero v. Rodgers (App. 2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a punitive damages claim survives the death of the injured person or of the wrongdoer.

Are punitive damages available against a drug maker in Arizona?

Generally not when the drug was made and labeled according to its FDA approval or is generally recognized as safe and effective. The exception requires clear and convincing proof that the defendant knowingly withheld from or misrepresented to the FDA information material and relevant to the harm (A.R.S. 12-701).

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Arizona?

It can. In Price v. Hartford (1972), the Arizona Supreme Court held that public policy did not bar coverage of punitive damages under a policy covering the insured's liability that did not exclude them.