California Punitive Damages Law: Proof, No General Cap (2026)

California allows punitive damages, which its Civil Code calls exemplary damages, in cases that do not arise from a contract when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice (Civil Code section 3294(a)). California sets no general cap on the amount: Civil Code sections 3294 through 3296 contain no dollar limit, no ratio and no state share, although an award must rest on evidence of the defendant's financial condition and remains subject to court review. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, listed in the cap section below.

Exemplary and punitive damages are the same thing in California. Section 3294(a) describes them as damages awarded "for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant." For how other states handle the same remedy, 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 California state law on punitive (exemplary) damages in civil cases: Civil Code sections 3294, 3295 and 3296, the related death-case, pleading and default rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, Government Code section 818, Insurance Code section 533, and the California Supreme Court decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages caps (for medical cases see California medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see California wrongful death law), federal claims, or the many separate statutes that authorize civil penalties or multiplied damages for particular claims, beyond the claim-specific punitive limits listed in the cap section.

When are punitive damages allowed in California?

Punitive damages are available in California under Civil Code section 3294(a), which reads in full:

"In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."

Three limits are built into that sentence. The claim must be for "the breach of an obligation not arising from contract," so a claim that rests only on a broken contract falls outside its words. The plaintiff must also recover "actual damages," because punitive damages come "in addition to" them. And the proof must reach the clear and convincing level.

Some defendants are outside the statute altogether:

• Public entities. Government Code section 818 provides that "a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant." Section 818 protects the entity itself. Government Code section 825 addresses punitive or exemplary damages awarded against an individual public employee: the entity generally may not pay that part of a judgment, but section 825(b) authorizes payment if its governing body makes the findings the section lists, including that the employee acted within the course and scope of employment, in good faith and without actual malice.
• A deceased defendant's estate. When the person who caused the harm has died, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.42 allows recovery of all damages that could have been recovered against that person "except damages recoverable under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other punitive or exemplary damages."

What does a plaintiff have to prove?

A plaintiff must prove oppression, fraud or malice by clear and convincing evidence (Civil Code section 3294(a)). Section 3294(c) defines each term:

"'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (2) 'Oppression' means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (3) 'Fraud' means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."

Malice therefore comes in two forms. One is conduct intended to injure the plaintiff. The other does not require intent to injure, but it requires conduct that is despicable and carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of others' rights or safety.

The California Supreme Court described what the three categories share in College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (1994): "Each involves 'intentional,' 'willful,' or 'conscious' wrongdoing of a 'despicable' or 'injurious[]' nature."

Is there a cap on punitive damages in California?

No general cap applies. Civil Code sections 3294, 3295 and 3296, which make up the Civil Code's article on exemplary damages, set no dollar limit and no multiple of compensatory damages.

Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits on punitive or exemplary damages, for example:

• Trade secrets: for willful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages "in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subdivision (a) or (b)" (Civil Code section 3426.3(c)).
• Medical information: a patient whose medical information was used or disclosed in violation of the listed sections and who sustained economic loss or personal injury may recover "punitive damages not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000)" (Civil Code section 56.35).
• Retaliatory eviction: punitive damages "of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each retaliatory act" where the lessor or agent was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice (Civil Code section 1942.5(h)(2)).
• Consumer credit denial: punitive damages "in an amount not greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)"; in a class action the total may not exceed "the lesser of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or 1 percent of the net worth of the creditor" (Civil Code section 1787.3(b)).
• Credit transactions regarding women: punitive damages "in an amount not greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)" in an individual action (Civil Code section 1812.31(b)).
• Identity-theft checks on credit applications: punitive damages "of not more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each violation" (Civil Code section 1785.20.3(c)).
• Ellis Act re-rentals: where a local rule requires an owner who re-rents withdrawn units to first offer them to the displaced tenant, an owner who fails to comply is liable for punitive damages "in an amount which does not exceed the contract rent for six months" (Government Code section 7060.2(c)).
• Lender suits for borrower loan fraud: "exemplary damages not to exceed 50 percent of the actual damages" (Code of Civil Procedure section 726(f); the same limit appears in Financial Code sections 1301, 7460 and 15102 for banks, savings associations and credit unions).

A few statutes set a floor rather than a ceiling. The court must award exemplary damages of "not less than three times the actual damages" for multiple acts of rent skimming (Civil Code section 891), "not less than three times the equity seller's actual damages" for certain violations by home equity purchasers (Civil Code section 1695.7), at least three times the compensation a foreclosure consultant received, or three times the owner's actual damages, for listed violations (Civil Code section 2945.6), and "not less than three times the amount of actual damages for a willful violation" of the household-mover lien statute (Business and Professions Code section 19245(h)). Civil Code section 3336.5(b) directs exemplary damages of "three times the actual damages" against a junk dealer or recycler holding a utility's or agency's materials without certification, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances do not justify them.

The amount is still controlled in other ways. In Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (1991), the California Supreme Court held that "an award of punitive damages cannot be sustained on appeal unless the trial record contains meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition," and that the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, must introduce that evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to California verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income, even when they arise from a physical injury; the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.

Does California take a share of a punitive award?

Not under the general rules. Civil Code sections 3294 through 3296 contain no provision sending any part of a punitive award to the state or to a fund.

Section 3296 does impose a reporting duty in one situation. When a punitive judgment is entered against an insurer or a licensed health care service plan, the plaintiff must, within 10 days of entry of judgment, provide specified materials to the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance or the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care (Civil Code section 3296(a)). That is a notice rule, not a split of the award.

How the amount is decided

Civil Code section 3295 controls when the defendant's wealth comes into the case. Under section 3295(d):

"The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294."

When a defendant applies, the verdict on actual damages and the finding of malice, oppression or fraud therefore come before any evidence of the defendant's wealth. Under Adams v. Murakami, the plaintiff carries the burden of putting that financial evidence in the record.

Other procedural rules:

• No dollar figure in the complaint. "No claim for exemplary damages shall state an amount or amounts" (Civil Code section 3295(e)).
• Discovery of wealth evidence. Pretrial discovery of the defendant's profits or financial condition is not permitted unless the court enters an order, which it may do on a finding that "the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294"; the plaintiff may still subpoena documents or witnesses to be available at trial (Civil Code section 3295(c)).
• Default judgments. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115 provides for a statement of the punitive damages sought to be served on the defendant. If the defendant appears in the action, "the plaintiff shall not be limited to the amount set forth in the statement served on the defendant pursuant to this section" (section 425.115(c)).

When is an employer liable for an employee's conduct?

An employer pays punitive damages for an employee's acts only in the situations listed in Civil Code section 3294(b):

"An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation."

The same employer standard carries into elder and dependent adult abuse cases. For physical abuse, neglect or abandonment, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657(c) requires the section 3294(b) standards to be satisfied "before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer." For financial abuse, section 15657.5(c) requires that "the standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any punitive damages may be imposed against an employer found liable for financial abuse."

Punitive damages against doctors and other health care providers

A punitive claim against a health care provider cannot appear in the first complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13(a) provides that, "in any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed."

The request is made by motion, and the court may allow the amended pleading only if, on the supporting and opposing affidavits, "the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code." The motion also has a deadline. The court "shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier." Damages caps that apply to the compensatory side of these cases are covered on the California medical malpractice page.

A similar rule applies to religious corporations. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14, no claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole may be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading, on a finding that "the plaintiff has established evidence which substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code."

Drunk driving and punitive damages

The California Supreme Court held in Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890 (1979), that "the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of 'malice' under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences."

Two points of context. The holding says intoxicated driving may qualify, depending on the circumstances; it does not make every drunk-driving case a punitive case. And Taylor was decided before section 3294's current wording, which was last amended in 1992 and now requires clear and convincing proof and, for this form of malice, "despicable" conduct carried on with a "willful and conscious disregard" of others' safety. For the compensatory side of crash cases, see California car accident laws.

Punitive damages when someone dies

California splits death cases into two kinds of claims, and punitive damages follow the decedent's own claim.

The survival claim. The decedent's personal representative or successor may pursue the decedent's own cause of action. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34(a), the damages recoverable "are limited to the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement."

Section 377.34(b) made a temporary exception for pain, suffering and disfigurement in actions granted a trial preference before January 1, 2022, or filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026. On the statute's face that window has closed for actions filed on or after January 1, 2026. A bill to make the exception permanent, SB 29 (2025-26 session), has sat on the Assembly inactive file since September 13, 2025, and is not law.

The wrongful-death claim. The survivors' own claim allows damages that "may be just," but section 377.61 provides that those damages "may not include damages recoverable under Section 377.34," which is where the decedent's punitive damages sit.

Felony homicide. Civil Code section 3294(d) opens a separate path:

"Damages may be recovered pursuant to this section in an action pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 377.10) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure based upon a death which resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony, whether or not the decedent died instantly or survived the fatal injury for some period of time."

Who may bring a death claim, and when, is covered on the California wrongful death page.

Does insurance pay punitive damages in California?

No. In PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 20 Cal.4th 310 (1999), the California Supreme Court concluded that "the insured in this case cannot shift to the insurance company its responsibility for the punitive damages," explaining that "our public policy prohibits indemnification for punitive damages." The court cited Insurance Code section 533, which provides that "an insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others."

California punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

The core punitive damages sections have been stable for decades: the code's history notes show section 3294 last amended by Statutes 1992, chapter 178, and section 3295 by Statutes 1987, chapter 1498. The live change is on the survival side. Statutes 2023, chapter 131 (AB 1754) amended Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, effective January 1, 2024, and the pain, suffering and disfigurement window it describes ran only for actions filed before January 1, 2026. Punitive damages the decedent could have recovered remain recoverable in the survival claim under section 377.34(a).

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• California wrongful death law
• California medical malpractice law
• California car accident laws

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

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does California allow punitive damages?

Yes. Civil Code 3294(a) allows exemplary (punitive) damages in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract when the plaintiff proves oppression, fraud or malice by clear and convincing evidence.

What is the burden of proof for punitive damages in California?

Clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice, under Civil Code 3294(a). Section 3294(c) defines each of the three terms.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in California?

Civil Code 3294 through 3296 set no general dollar cap or ratio, though some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, for example twice the award for trade-secret misappropriation (Civil Code 3426.3(c)) and $3,000 under the medical information statute (Civil Code 56.35). Under Adams v. Murakami (1991), an award cannot be sustained on appeal without meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition, and federal due-process limits also apply.

Does the state of California take part of a punitive damages award?

Not under the general statute. Civil Code 3294 through 3296 contain no state or fund share. Section 3296 only requires the plaintiff to send notice to state regulators when a punitive judgment is entered against an insurer or health care service plan.

Are punitive damages available for a drunk driving accident in California?

The California Supreme Court held in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) that driving while intoxicated may constitute malice under Civil Code 3294 when the circumstances show a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences. The current statute requires clear and convincing proof.

Are punitive damages available in a California wrongful death case?

Code of Civil Procedure 377.61 excludes from wrongful-death damages the survival damages of section 377.34, which include the punitive damages the decedent could have recovered; the estate pursues those in the survival claim. Civil Code 3294(d) also allows punitive damages in a death action where the defendant was convicted of a felony for the homicide.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in California?

No. In PPG Industries v. Transamerica (1999) the California Supreme Court held that public policy prohibits indemnification for punitive damages, citing Insurance Code 533.

Are punitive damages available against a city or government agency in California?

Not against the entity itself. Government Code 818 provides that a public entity is not liable for damages under Civil Code 3294 or other damages imposed to punish the defendant. Government Code 825 addresses punitive damages awarded against an individual public employee: the entity generally may not pay that part of a judgment, but section 825(b) authorizes payment if its governing body makes the findings the section lists.

Can punitive damages be claimed in a California medical malpractice case?

Only with court permission. Code of Civil Procedure 425.13 bars a punitive claim against a health care provider for professional negligence unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading, and the motion must be filed within the deadlines the section sets.