Tennessee Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and Rules (2026)

Tennessee allows punitive damages when the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted "maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly" (Tenn. Code Ann. 29-39-104(a)(1)), and section 29-39-104(a)(5) generally caps the award at the greater of two times the total compensatory damages or $500,000. The cap does not apply in four situations: a specific intent to inflict serious physical injury that did injure the plaintiff, intentional falsification, destruction or concealment of records to evade liability, impairment by alcohol or drugs that caused the injuries or death, and a felony conviction for the act or omission that caused the damages.

The cap is in force in Tennessee's state courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held it unenforceable in 2018, a ruling that binds federal courts in that circuit but not the Tennessee Supreme Court, which in 2020 expressly gave no opinion on the punitive cap. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Tennessee state law on punitive damages in civil cases: Tenn. Code Ann. 29-39-104, the Tennessee Supreme Court's standard in Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., and the other statutes and decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages caps (see Tennessee medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Tennessee wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Tennessee allow punitive damages?

Yes. Punitive damages in Tennessee began as a common-law remedy and are now regulated by section 29-39-104, titled "Punitive damages." The statute sets the standard, the burden of proof, a bifurcated trial and a cap, but it does not itself grant the remedy. Subsection (b) provides:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a right to an award of punitive damages or to limit the duty of the court, or the appellate courts, to scrutinize all punitive damage awards, ensure that all punitive damage awards comply with applicable procedural, evidentiary and constitutional requirements, and to order remittitur when appropriate."

The statute codified much of Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992), where the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that "punitive damages are to be awarded only in the most egregious of cases."

What must be proven

Conduct and burden. Section 29-39-104(a)(1) provides that punitive damages "may only be awarded if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly." Hodges set the same standard and defined two of the terms:

"A person acts maliciously when the person is motivated by ill will, hatred, or personal spite. A person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances."

What the jury weighs on amount. Under 29-39-104(a)(4), the trier of fact "shall consider, to the extent relevant," factors that begin with "the defendant's financial condition and net worth; the nature and reprehensibility of the defendant's wrongdoing; the impact of the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff," along with "any other circumstances shown by the evidence that bear on determining a proper amount of punitive damages." The jury is instructed "that the primary purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar misconduct in the future by the defendant and others while the purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole."

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Tennessee?

Yes, with exceptions. Section 29-39-104(a)(5) provides:

"Punitive or exemplary damages shall not exceed an amount equal to the greater of: (A) Two (2) times the total amount of compensatory damages awarded; or (B) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)"

Under (a)(6), the cap "shall not be disclosed to the jury, but shall be applied by the court to any punitive damages verdict."

When the cap does not apply. Section 29-39-104(a)(7) lifts the limit in actions brought for damages or an injury:

• Intent to injure. "If the defendant had a specific intent to inflict serious physical injury, and the defendant's intentional conduct did, in fact, injure the plaintiff."
• Destroying evidence. If the defendant "intentionally falsified, destroyed or concealed records containing material evidence with the purpose of wrongfully evading liability in the case at issue." This does not reach "the good faith withholding of records pursuant to privileges and other laws applicable to discovery," or records managed "in the normal course of business or in compliance with the defendant's document retention policy or state or federal regulations."
• Intoxication. "If the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant or stimulant, resulting in the defendant's judgment being substantially impaired, and causing the injuries or death." A defendant using lawfully prescribed drugs "administered in accordance with a prescription," or over-the-counter drugs taken according to the manufacturer's written instructions, is not treated as under the influence.
• Felony conviction. "If the defendant's act or omission results in the defendant being convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, another state, or under federal law, and that act or omission caused the damages or injuries." The exception requires a conviction.

Where the facts are disputed, the trier of fact decides by special verdict whether an exception applies (29-39-104(a)(8)).

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

• Uniform Trade Secrets Act: for willful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages "in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a)" (47-25-1704(b)).
• Sales representative commissions: a principal who in bad faith fails to pay on time may be liable for exemplary damages "in an amount which does not exceed treble the amount of the commissions owed" (47-50-114(d)).
• Tennessee Home Loan Protection Act: where a violation is malicious or reckless, punitive damages "shall be limited to three (3) times the actual damages and the amount of all finance charges and fees paid by the borrower, exclusive of costs and reasonable attorney's fees" (45-20-107(b)).
• Utility fraud and theft: a person who violates 65-35-102 is liable for damages "including actual, compensatory, incidental and punitive damages," and "the damages shall be three (3) times the utility's estimated loss of revenue," plus fees and costs (65-35-104).
• Assault on educational personnel: the assailant is liable "for all damages resulting from the assault, including compensatory and punitive damages," and a prevailing victim "shall be entitled to three (3) times the amount of the actual damages" (49-6-2008).
• Bad-faith patent infringement letters: a recipient who prevails under Title 29, Chapter 10 may be awarded actual damages and "punitive damages in an amount equal to three (3) times the actual damages" (29-10-104).
• Terrorism Prevention and Response Act of 2002: a prevailing victim "shall be eligible for punitive damages up to the limits set in § 29-39-104" (39-13-811(b)).
• Consumer Protection Act of 1977: for a willful or knowing violation, a court may award three times actual damages, "except that the court may not award exemplary or punitive damages for the same unfair or deceptive practice" (47-18-109(a)(3)).

Did a court strike down the cap?

A federal court held it unenforceable; the Tennessee Supreme Court has expressed no opinion on it. In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., 912 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2018), the Sixth Circuit wrote:

"We therefore hold that T.C.A. § 29-39-104 is unenforceable to the extent that it purports to cap punitive damage awards."

The court rested that holding on the right to trial by jury in Article I, section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution. A Sixth Circuit decision on Tennessee law binds the federal courts in that circuit. It does not bind Tennessee's state courts.

In McClay v. Airport Management Services, LLC, No. M2019-00511-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020), a case about the noneconomic damages cap in 29-39-102, the Tennessee Supreme Court noted that "decisions by federal circuit court of appeals are not binding on this Court" and found "the reasoning of the majority in Lindenberg unpersuasive in this case." It then said: "the statutory cap on punitive damages in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-104 is not at issue in this case, and we express no opinion on this issue." The punitive cap therefore remains part of the Tennessee Code, and the question of its validity under the state constitution is open in the state courts.

Does Tennessee take a share of the award?

No general split-recovery statute exists in Tennessee. Section 29-39-104 contains no provision directing any part of a punitive award to the state or to a fund. One statute for a particular claim does: in a civil action against a person who commits or attempts assisted suicide, exemplary damages "shall be paid over to the department of revenue for deposit in the criminal injuries compensation fund" (39-13-216(e)).

How the amount is decided

Mandatory two-phase trial. Under 29-39-104(a)(2), in any action seeking punitive damages, "the trier of fact in a bifurcated proceeding shall first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded and in what amount and by special verdict whether each defendant's conduct was malicious, intentional, fraudulent or reckless and whether subdivision (a)(7) applies." If the jury finds qualifying conduct, "the court shall promptly commence an evidentiary hearing in which the jury shall determine the amount of punitive damages, if any" (a)(3). Hodges had already provided that evidence of a defendant's "financial affairs, financial condition, or net worth is not admissible" in the first phase.

Pretrial challenges. Section 29-39-104(f) preserves "a court's authority to enter judgment as a matter of law prior to or during a trial on a claim for punitive damages." In Fischiettie v. Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee, Inc., No. W2025-00228-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2026), the Tennessee Court of Appeals repeated its earlier statement, quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008), that "[a] motion for partial summary judgment is an appropriate way to challenge a claim for punitive damages."

Review after the verdict. Courts keep their duty to scrutinize awards and "to order remittitur when appropriate" (29-39-104(b)). In the other direction, Tenn. Code Ann. 20-10-101(a)(1) lets a trial judge who finds a verdict "not adequate to compensate the plaintiff or plaintiffs in compensatory damages or punitive damages" suggest an additur to either class of damages.

Appeal bonds. When a court sets the bond needed to stay a judgment pending appeal, it "shall not include punitive or exemplary damages in the judgment amount" (27-1-124(b)), unless the appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant is dissipating assets outside the ordinary course of business to avoid paying (27-1-124(c)).

The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Tennessee verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them. Under federal tax law, punitive damages are carved out of the exclusion for personal physical injury damages (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.

Employer and vicarious liability

Section 29-39-104(a)(9) requires that a defendant's culpability for punitive damages based on vicarious liability "be determined separately from that of any alleged agent, employee or representative." Under subsection (g)(1), punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant based on vicarious liability for an agent or employee "only if the finder of fact determines by special verdict based on clear and convincing evidence" that:

• the act or omission "was committed by a person employed in a management capacity while that person was acting within the scope of employment";
• the defendant "was reckless in hiring, retaining, supervising or training the agent or employee and that recklessness was the proximate cause of the act or omission that caused the loss or injury"; or
• the defendant "authorized, ratified or approved the act or omission with knowledge or conscious or reckless disregard that the act or omission may result in the loss or injury."

A person employed in a management capacity is "an employee with authority to set policy and exercise control, discretion, and independent judgment over a significant scope of the employer's business" (g)(3). Subsection (g)(2) states that it does not "expand or increase the scope of vicarious liability or punitive damages liability under Tennessee law."

Products, drugs and regulatory compliance

Tennessee has three separate compliance defenses.

Drugs and medical devices. Under 29-39-104(d)(1), punitive damages "shall not be awarded in a civil action involving a drug or device" if it was "manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of an approval or license issued by the federal food and drug administration," or was a compliant over-the-counter drug or device marketed under federal regulations and an applicable monograph. The defense does not protect a manufacturer that, before the harm and in violation of FDA regulations, "withheld from the food and drug administration information known to be material and relevant to the harm" or misrepresented that kind of information (d)(2).

Other products. Section 29-28-104(b), in the products liability chapter, provides that a manufacturer or seller, "other than a manufacturer of a drug or device, shall not be liable for exemplary or punitive damages" if the product complied with a government agency's approval or license, or with an applicable statute or agency standard when it left the manufacturer's or seller's control. The defense is lost if the defendant sold the product after an agency ordered it off the market or withdrew approval, or withheld or misrepresented material information to the agency (29-28-104(c)).

Any civil action. Under 29-39-104(e), punitive damages "shall not be awarded in any civil action when a defendant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in substantial compliance with applicable federal and state regulations setting forth specific standards applicable to the activity in question and intended to protect a class of persons or entities that includes the plaintiff, if those regulations were in effect at the time the activity occurred."

Sellers who did not make the product. A seller other than the manufacturer is not liable for punitive damages unless it "exercised substantial control" over the aspect of the product that caused the harm, altered or modified the product in a way that was "a substantial factor in causing the harm," or "had actual knowledge of the defective condition of the product at the time the seller supplied the same" (29-39-104(c)).

Drunk driving, wrongful death and other claims

Drunk driving. The intoxication exception in 29-39-104(a)(7)(C) removes the cap where impairment substantially affected the defendant's judgment and caused "the injuries or death." The clear and convincing standard of 29-39-104(a)(1) still applies. For the rest of a crash claim, see Tennessee car accident law.

Wrongful death. Tennessee's wrongful death statutes do not mention punitive damages. Section 20-5-106(a) provides that the right of action a person who dies from injuries "would have had against the wrongdoer, in case death had not ensued, shall not abate or be extinguished by the person's death but shall pass to the person's surviving spouse" or other listed relatives, and section 20-5-113, which lists damages recoverable in wrongful death, does not address punitive damages. Who brings the claim, deadlines and beneficiaries are on the Tennessee wrongful death page.

Deceased defendants. In Hayes v. Gill, 216 Tenn. 39, 390 S.W.2d 213 (1965), a case arising from an automobile collision, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that punitive damages cannot be awarded against the estate of a deceased person: "Since the deceased party can in no way be punished by the award of punitive damages, we see no reason for allowing such damages to be assessed."

Elder and vulnerable adult abuse. In a civil action for abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, exploitation or theft under 71-6-120, "a defendant may also be found liable for punitive damages in accordance with applicable common law standards" (71-6-120(e)). The section does not apply to health care liability actions, which are governed solely by Title 29, Chapter 26 (71-6-120(g)).

Therapist sexual misconduct. The damages available to victims under Title 29, Chapter 26, Part 2 include "Punitive damages as otherwise provided by law" (29-26-209(4)). For other health care claims, see Tennessee medical malpractice law.

Libel retractions. When a newspaper or periodical publishes a timely, full and fair correction after notice, "the plaintiff shall recover only actual, and not punitive, damages" (29-24-103(b)). The exemption does not apply to an article about a candidate for office published within ten days before the election. See Tennessee defamation laws for the underlying claims.

Breach of promise to marry. Where the defendant is more than 60 years old when the case is tried, damages are limited to the plaintiff's actual financial loss up to the date of trial "and no punitive damages shall be allowed" (36-3-404).

Injuries suffered while committing a felony. A person injured while committing or attempting a felony on another's real property "is barred from recovery of actual or punitive damages" for injuries inflicted by the owner, lawful occupier or tenant (29-34-201(a)).

Government defendants and public employees

The State. On claims before the Tennessee Claims Commission, "the state will be liable for actual damages only" and "will not be liable for punitive damages and the costs of litigation other than court costs" (9-8-307(d)). The state is also not liable "for willful, malicious, or criminal acts by state employees, or for acts on the part of state employees done for personal gain." The Board of Claims has no jurisdiction over a claim within 9-8-307(a) "even though the claimant requests punitive damages" (9-8-108(a)(1)).

State employees. State officers and employees are "absolutely immune from liability for acts or omissions within the scope of the officer's or employee's office or employment, except for willful, malicious, or criminal acts or omissions or for acts or omissions done for personal gain" (9-8-307(h)).

Local governments. Under Tennessee's governmental tort liability chapter (Title 29, Chapter 20), immunity "is removed for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment," subject to exceptions that include malicious prosecution, deceit and civil rights claims (29-20-205). For an injury caused within the scope of employment for which the governmental entity is immune, no claim may be brought against the employee in any amount above the amounts set for governmental entities in 29-20-403 "unless the act or omission was willful, malicious, criminal, or performed for personal financial gain," or was health care liability committed by a health care practitioner and the claim is brought against that practitioner (29-20-310(c)).

In Tipton County Board of Education v. Dennis, 561 S.W.2d 148 (Tenn. 1978), the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that "we do not consider that punitive damages are recoverable under the provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act" and that the General Assembly "intended to authorize compensatory damages, but not exemplary or punitive damages, within the statutory limits."

Educators. The Tennessee Educators Protection Act provides that "an employee is not liable for punitive or exemplary damages for acts or omissions that occur within the course and scope of the employee's employment," and that an employee who acts "with the specific intent to cause harm is not acting within the course and scope" of employment (49-1-1205).

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Tennessee?

It can, depending on the policy. In Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964), the Tennessee Supreme Court read the policy before it as protecting the insured "against claims for both compensatory and punitive damages" and refused to void that coverage on public policy grounds:

"Then to hold assured, as a matter of public policy, is not protected by the policy on a claim for punitive damages would have the effect to partially void the contract. We do not think such should be done except in a clear case, and the reasons advanced do not make such a clear case."

The punitive award in Lazenby arose from "an automobile accident due to the negligence of" a driver who "was driving his vehicle in an intoxicated condition," and the court described the coverage a policyholder would expect as reaching "all claims, not intentionally inflicted." The holding turned on the policy's language, and exclusions in a particular policy still control what it covers.

For the 2026 claim against employers of unlawfully present commercial drivers (55-50-419), an employer's liability insurance policy "must not be construed to cover" the employer's liability under that section unless the policy's provisions "expressly provide coverage for a claim created by this section."

Tennessee punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

Section 29-39-104 was enacted in 2011 (Acts 2011, ch. 510). A 2012 act (ch. 902) added the felony-conviction exception to the cap, and a 2013 act (ch. 224) added the vicarious liability rules in subsection (g), effective July 1, 2013, for actions accruing on or after that date. The Court of Appeals quoted the bifurcation provisions of (a)(2)-(3) as current law in March 2026 in Fischiettie. Two 2026 acts, effective July 1, 2026, create claims that carry punitive damages "as provided in § 29-39-104": a strict-liability claim against a direct employer who knowingly employs and permits a person unlawfully present in the United States to operate a commercial motor vehicle, and against a state official or employee who recklessly issues that person a commercial driver license (55-50-419, Pub. Ch. 1070), and a civil action for interference with worship at, or damage to the property of, a house of worship (39-17-306, Pub. Ch. 1140). The main judicial development is the Sixth Circuit's 2018 Lindenberg decision and the Tennessee Supreme Court's 2020 statement in McClay that it expressed no opinion on the punitive cap.

Related pages

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

This article provides general legal information about Tennessee punitive damages law as of 2026-10-19. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Tennessee.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Tennessee allow punitive damages?

Yes. Tennessee courts award punitive damages under the standard set in Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. (1992), and Tenn. Code Ann. 29-39-104 now governs them: the claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly. The statute says it does not create a right to punitive damages.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Tennessee?

Generally yes. Tenn. Code Ann. 29-39-104(a)(5) limits punitive damages to the greater of two times the total compensatory damages awarded or $500,000, except where the defendant intended serious physical injury, destroyed or concealed records to evade liability, was impaired by alcohol or drugs, or was convicted of a felony for the conduct. The Sixth Circuit held the cap unenforceable in Lindenberg (2018), which binds federal courts, and the Tennessee Supreme Court has expressed no opinion on it.

What must be proven for punitive damages in Tennessee?

Clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly (29-39-104(a)(1)). Under Hodges, a person acts recklessly when aware of, but consciously disregarding, a substantial and unjustifiable risk whose disregard is a gross deviation from ordinary care.

Did a court strike down Tennessee's punitive damages cap?

Only a federal court. In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life (6th Cir. 2018), the Sixth Circuit held the cap unenforceable under the jury-trial right in the Tennessee Constitution. Federal decisions do not bind the Tennessee Supreme Court, which said in McClay (2020) that the punitive cap was not at issue and that it expressed no opinion on it.

Are punitive damages capped in a Tennessee drunk driving case?

The 29-39-104 cap does not apply if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or another intoxicant or stimulant, the defendant's judgment was substantially impaired, and that caused the injuries or death. Lawfully prescribed drugs taken as prescribed, and over-the-counter drugs taken as directed, do not count.

Does Tennessee take part of a punitive damages award?

No general statute does. Section 29-39-104 contains no provision directing any share of a punitive award to the state or a fund. One claim-specific statute sends exemplary damages in an assisted-suicide civil action to the state's criminal injuries compensation fund (39-13-216(e)).

Are punitive damages available against the State of Tennessee?

Not on claims before the Tennessee Claims Commission. Tenn. Code Ann. 9-8-307(d) provides that the state is liable for actual damages only and will not be liable for punitive damages.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Tennessee?

It can, depending on the policy. In Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters (1964), a case about an intoxicated driver with no allegation of intent to injure, the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to hold as a matter of public policy that an insured was unprotected against punitive damages under a policy written to cover them, saying it would not partially void the contract except in a clear case.

Are punitive damages available against a drug or device maker in Tennessee?

Not if the drug or device was made and labeled in accordance with its FDA approval or license, or was a compliant over-the-counter product, unless the manufacturer withheld material information from the FDA or misrepresented it in violation of FDA regulations (29-39-104(d)).