Vermont Punitive Damages Laws: Standard, Caps and Rules (2026)

Vermont allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy: under Fly Fish Vermont, Inc. v. Chapin Hill Estates, Inc., 2010 VT 33, a plaintiff must show wrongful conduct that is "outrageously reprehensible" plus malice. Vermont has no general punitive damages statute and no general cap, although some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, such as the three-times measures in the Consumer Protection Act (9 V.S.A. 2461(b)) and the vulnerable-adult financial exploitation statute (33 V.S.A. 6952(b)(2)).

Ordinary negligence is not enough, the burden of proof is not set by statute, and whether punitive damages can be recovered under the wrongful death statute is unresolved. Towns, school districts and other municipalities are immune from punitive damage awards absent a clear legislative directive (In re Town Highway No. 20, 2012 VT 17). For how other states handle these questions, 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 Vermont state law on punitive damages in civil cases: the common-law standard set by the Vermont Supreme Court in Brueckner v. Norwich University (1999) and Fly Fish Vermont (2010), and the Vermont statutes named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases (see Vermont medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Vermont wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Vermont allow punitive damages?

Yes, against most defendants. Punitive damages in Vermont come from the courts rather than from a general statute, and the same courts have held municipalities immune from them absent a clear legislative directive (see government defendants below). The Vermont Supreme Court explained in Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118 (1999), that "Vermont has long required a plaintiff to demonstrate that a defendant acted with malice in order to recover punitive damages," and in Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33, it restated the test as two elements.

Many Vermont statutes also authorize punitive or exemplary damages for specific claims, from consumer protection and fair employment to genetic testing privacy and human trafficking. Those are listed below. One statute rules them out in a narrow setting: in a trespass action against an executor or administrator, the plaintiff recovers "the actual damage, and not vindictive or exemplary damages" (14 V.S.A. 1454).

What must be proven

Two elements. In Fly Fish, the Vermont Supreme Court held:

"Punitive damages require a showing of essentially two elements. The first is wrongful conduct that is outrageously reprehensible. ... The second is malice, defined variously as bad motive, ill will, personal spite or hatred, reckless disregard, and the like."

Reckless or wanton conduct. The court then defined what the reckless-disregard branch of malice requires:

"Accordingly, we hold that the culpability necessary for an award of punitive damages based on reckless or wanton misconduct requires evidence that the defendant acted, or failed to act, in conscious and deliberate disregard of a known, substantial and intolerable risk of harm to the plaintiff, with the knowledge that the acts or omissions were substantially certain to result in the threatened harm."

Older Vermont cases phrased malice more loosely. Brueckner quoted Shortle v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (1979), which said actual malice "may be shown by conduct manifesting personal ill will or carried out under circumstances evidencing insult or oppression, or even by conduct showing a reckless or wanton disregard of one's rights." Fly Fish is the later and more specific statement of the reckless-or-wanton test.

Wrongful or negligent conduct is not enough. In Brueckner, the court stated: "We have found punitive damages inappropriate where the evidence shows only that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct," and "indifference attributable to negligence is not malice."

Burden of proof. No Vermont statute sets the burden of proof for punitive damages, and Brueckner and Fly Fish do not state whether it is a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. This page does not state a burden for that reason.

Drunk driving and vehicle cases

Evidence of drunk driving is measured against the same malice element. In Fly Fish, the Vermont Supreme Court described its earlier decision in Bolsta, 2004 VT 19, as "holding that reckless DUI alone, absent additional evidence of personal animus or other bad motive, was insufficient to establish malice necessary for punitive award."

For alcohol sellers, the Vermont Supreme Court held in Clymer v. Webster, 596 A.2d 905 (Vt. 1991), that the Dram Shop Act (now 7 V.S.A. 501) "does not preclude" punitive damages, but that "punitive damages cannot be awarded absent a showing that the defendant acted recklessly." The Act has been amended since and does not mention punitive damages. For the rest of a crash claim, see Vermont car accident laws.

How the amount is decided

The Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "in assessing punitive damages, the fact-finder must take into account the character and the standing of the party, the malice or wantonness of the party's conduct, and the party's financial status" (Pion v. Bean, 2003 VT 79, ¶ 44, quoted in Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell, Vt. Supreme Court No. 17-239, Oct. 5, 2018). In Kneebinding, with no evidence of the defendant's resources, the Court held that "the trial court reasonably declined to impose punitive damages."

Punitive damages against a corporation or employer

A corporation can be liable for punitive damages, but only through its leadership. Brueckner quoted Shortle:

"The fact that the defendant is a corporation does not prevent an award of punitive damages in an appropriate case, but the malicious or unlawful act relied upon must be that of the governing officers of the corporation or one lawfully exercising their authority, or, if the act relied upon is that of a servant or agent of the corporation, it must be clearly shown that the governing officers either directed the act, participated in it, or subsequently ratified it."

In the same case, the court stated that "we are not prepared to hold that inaction or inattention of senior corporate officers constitutes malice sufficient to establish punitive damages liability."

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Vermont?

No Vermont statute sets a general cap on punitive damages. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, each in its own measure:

• Consumer protection: exemplary damages "not exceeding three times the value of the consideration given by the consumer" (9 V.S.A. 2461(b)).
• Antitrust remedies: exemplary damages "not exceeding three times the value of the consideration given or damages sustained by the aggrieved person" (9 V.S.A. 2465(a)).
• Bad faith assertions of patent infringement: exemplary damages "in an amount equal to $50,000.00 or three times the total of damages, costs, and fees, whichever is greater" (9 V.S.A. 4199(b)(4)). This is a set measure, not a ceiling.
• Financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult: "If the financial exploitation was intentional, the court may grant exemplary damages not to exceed three times the value of economic damages" (33 V.S.A. 6952(b)(2)).
• Joint fiduciary accounts: exemplary damages "not exceeding three times the owner's damages" (8 V.S.A. 14212(h)).

Other statutes authorize punitive damages without stating a limit. The trade secrets chapter provides: "If malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award punitive damages" (9 V.S.A. 4603(b)).

The State's own liability under the Vermont Tort Claims Act is limited to "$500,000.00 to any one person" and "$2,000,000.00 to all persons arising out of each occurrence" (12 V.S.A. 5601(b)). That section does not mention punitive damages; see the government section below.

The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Vermont verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Does Vermont take part of the award?

No general Vermont statute gives the State or a fund a share of a private punitive damages award.

Wrongful death and survival actions

No Vermont statute or decision described on this page decides whether punitive damages are recoverable in a wrongful death action. The wrongful death statute provides that "the court or jury before whom the issue is tried may give such damages as are just, with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from the death, to the spouse and next of kin," with loss of love and companionship added where the decedent is a minor child (14 V.S.A. 1492(b)). It does not mention punitive damages. In Clymer v. Webster (1991), the Court found it unnecessary to "address the issue of whether punitive damages are available under the WDA."

A personal-injury action pending when either party dies "shall survive and may be prosecuted to final judgment by or against the executors or administrators of the deceased party" (14 V.S.A. 1452). Section 1453 adds that the causes of action in sections 1451 and 1452 "shall survive" and that actions on them "may be commenced and prosecuted by or against the executor or administrator" (14 V.S.A. 1453). Neither section says whether a punitive damages claim survives. Who brings a death claim and when are on the Vermont wrongful death page.

Government defendants

The Vermont Tort Claims Act makes the State liable for injury caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a State employee acting within the scope of employment "under the same circumstances, in the same manner, and to the same extent as a private person would be liable" (12 V.S.A. 5601(a)), subject to the dollar limits above. The section does not mention punitive damages, and it does not apply to "any claim arising out of alleged assault, battery, abuse of process, misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, or interference with contractual rights" (5601(e)(6)), except to the extent of liability insurance purchased by the Secretary of Administration (5601(f)). Suits over a State employee's in-scope acts lie only against the State, but that rule "does not apply to gross negligence or willful misconduct" (12 V.S.A. 5602(b)); the parallel rule for municipal employees does not apply to an act "that was willful, intentional, or outside the scope of the employee's authority" (24 V.S.A. 901a(e)). For towns and other municipalities, the Vermont Supreme Court has held that, "absent a clear legislative directive to the contrary, municipalities are immune from punitive damage awards" (In re Town Highway No. 20, 2012 VT 17, ¶ 67). In Blondin v. Milton Town School District, 2021 VT 2, it applied that rule to a school district, reasoning that "Schools and school districts are municipal entities supported by taxpayers," and held that the public accommodations statute's punitive damages language (9 V.S.A. 4506(a)) does not show "clear legislative intent" to allow punitive damages against public educational institutions, as opposed to private entities. Whether punitive damages can be awarded against the State itself is not addressed by 12 V.S.A. 5601's text.

Statutes that authorize punitive damages for particular claims

Vermont has dozens of claim-specific provisions. Against a town, school district or other municipality, the municipal-immunity rule described under government defendants applies absent a clear legislative directive. Examples by area:

• Employment: the Fair Employment Practices subchapter lets a person aggrieved by a violation seek "compensatory and punitive damages or equitable relief" (21 V.S.A. 495b(b)); similar language appears in retaliation and employment statutes such as 21 V.S.A. 348(b), 397(b), 493(a), 508(5), 561(c) (health coverage status discrimination) and 643b(e) (reinstatement).
• Public accommodations and housing: a person aggrieved by a violation of the chapter on discrimination in public accommodations and the rental and sale of real estate may sue "for injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages" (9 V.S.A. 4506(a)). The Vermont Supreme Court held in Blondin, 2021 VT 2, that this language does not show the clear legislative intent needed to allow punitive damages against a public school district.
• Consumer and credit: punitive damages "in the case of a willful violation" under 9 V.S.A. 2464c (telephone solicitation private action), 2464e(c)(3)(A) (robocalls), 2470(j), 2480f(b) (fair credit reporting) and 4191(d) (removal of booking photographs); a lending institution that discriminates against an applicant is liable for punitive damages (8 V.S.A. 10403(e)).
• Personal harms: compensatory and punitive damages for nonconsensual removal of or tampering with a condom (12 V.S.A. 1043(b)); punitive damages for a victim of human trafficking "in the case of a willful violation" (13 V.S.A. 2662(a)); civil damages "including punitive damages" for genetic testing violations (18 V.S.A. 9335(b)); "punitive damages" for a person arrested in violation of the ban on civil arrest while traveling to, attending or returning from a court proceeding (since 2022) or, since June 16, 2026, at other protected locations such as educational institutions, polling places and health care facilities (12 V.S.A. 3577(c)(3)(B)).
• Reporters of abuse: compensatory and punitive damages against a person who changes a reporter's employment status because of a report of child abuse (33 V.S.A. 4913) or adult abuse (33 V.S.A. 6909).
• Real estate: a buyer "may also seek punitive damages when the seller knowingly failed to provide the required information" (27 V.S.A. 380(c)); a mortgagee that fails to provide payoff statements or refuses to discharge is liable for punitive damages (27 V.S.A. 464(d)). Under the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, "consequential, special, or punitive damages shall not be awarded except as specifically provided in this title or pursuant to other laws" (27A V.S.A. 1-114(a)).

Contract waivers. Under 9 V.S.A. 6055(a)(3), "a waiver of the individual's right to seek punitive damages as provided by law" in a standard-form contract that the individual did not draft or have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to be substantively unconscionable. The section does not apply to contracts with a party regulated by the Department of Financial Regulation, financial institutions or credit unions, recreational-activity contracts, or motor vehicle retail installment contracts (6055(e)).

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Vermont?

It can, depending on the policy. In State v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 137 Vt. 313 (1979), the policy promised to pay "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages." The Vermont Supreme Court read "all sums as damages" to mean "the whole amount due a plaintiff as damages pursuant to a legal judgment or settlement regardless of how characterized," noted that "the insurer drafts the contract and can easily include exclusions for punitive damages," and stated: "we find no public policy in Vermont against coverage of punitive damages."

By statute, "a risk retention group chartered in this State may provide coverage for payment of punitive damages, the multiplied portion of multiple damages, or other penalties in the nature of compensatory damages" (8 V.S.A. 6052(a)).

Vermont punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

Vermont's general punitive damages rules come from the courts: Fly Fish (2010) on the conduct standard, and In re Town Highway No. 20 (2012) and Blondin (2021) on municipal immunity. Recent statutes have added claim-specific remedies rather than general rules: the condom-removal action in 12 V.S.A. 1043 (added 2023, No. 100 (Adj. Sess.), effective July 1, 2024); the real estate disclosure remedy in 27 V.S.A. 380 (added 2023, No. 181 (Adj. Sess.), effective June 17, 2024, and amended 2025, No. 52, effective Sept. 1, 2025); and the civil-arrest remedy in 12 V.S.A. 3577(c)(3)(B), which allows punitive damages for a person arrested in violation of the ban on civil arrest. That remedy was enacted for arrests while traveling to, attending or returning from a court proceeding by 2021, No. 153 (Adj. Sess.), effective May 31, 2022, and extended to other protected locations, such as educational institutions, polling places and health care facilities, by 2025, No. 150 (Adj. Sess.), effective June 16, 2026.

Related pages

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

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

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Vermont allow punitive damages?

Yes. Vermont allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy. Under Fly Fish Vermont v. Chapin Hill Estates (2010 VT 33), a plaintiff must show wrongful conduct that is outrageously reprehensible plus malice, and many Vermont statutes also authorize punitive or exemplary damages for particular claims. Municipalities, including school districts, are immune from punitive damage awards absent a clear legislative directive (In re Town Highway No. 20, 2012 VT 17).

What has to be proven for punitive damages in Vermont?

Outrageously reprehensible conduct and malice, such as bad motive, ill will or personal spite. Malice based on reckless or wanton conduct requires conscious and deliberate disregard of a known, substantial and intolerable risk of harm, with knowledge that harm was substantially certain (Fly Fish, 2010 VT 33). Indifference attributable to negligence is not malice (Brueckner, 1999).

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

No Vermont statute sets one, and the Vermont Supreme Court decisions described on this page, Brueckner (1999) and Fly Fish (2010), do not state whether the standard is a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Vermont?

No general cap. Some statutes for particular claims set their own limits, for example exemplary damages not exceeding three times the value of the consideration given by the consumer (9 V.S.A. 2461(b)), not exceeding three times the value of economic damages for intentional financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult (33 V.S.A. 6952(b)(2)), and not exceeding three times the owner's damages for joint fiduciary account violations (8 V.S.A. 14212(h)).

Are punitive damages available in a Vermont drunk driving case?

Only if the evidence meets the Fly Fish standard. Fly Fish describes Bolsta (2004 VT 19) as holding that reckless drunk driving, absent additional evidence of personal animus or other bad motive, was insufficient to establish the malice needed for a punitive award. Against an alcohol seller under the Dram Shop Act, Clymer v. Webster (1991) held that punitive damages are not precluded but require a showing that the seller acted recklessly.

Are punitive damages available in a Vermont wrongful death case?

The question is unresolved on the authorities described here. The wrongful death statute, 14 V.S.A. 1492(b), allows damages that are just with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from the death and does not mention punitive damages, and no Vermont Supreme Court decision on this page decides the point.

Does Vermont take part of a punitive damages award?

No general Vermont statute gives the State or a fund a share of a private punitive damages award.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Vermont?

It can. In State v. Glens Falls Insurance Co. (1979), the Vermont Supreme Court held that a policy promising to pay all sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages covered punitive damages, found no Vermont public policy against such coverage, and noted that insurers can write exclusions for punitive damages. Risk retention groups chartered in Vermont may also cover them (8 V.S.A. 6052(a)).

Are punitive damages available against a Vermont town or school district?

Generally no. The Vermont Supreme Court held in In re Town Highway No. 20 (2012 VT 17) that, absent a clear legislative directive to the contrary, municipalities are immune from punitive damage awards, and in Blondin v. Milton Town School District (2021 VT 2) it applied that rule to a school district, including a claim under the public accommodations statute, 9 V.S.A. 4506(a). The decisions address municipalities, not the State itself.

Are punitive damages available against a corporation in Vermont?

Yes, in an appropriate case, but the malicious act must be that of the corporation's governing officers or someone lawfully exercising their authority, or, for an agent's act, it must be clearly shown that the governing officers directed, participated in or ratified it (Brueckner, quoting Shortle).