From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jurinko v. Medical Protective Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 30, 2008
Nos. 06-3519 06-3666 (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 06-3519 06-3666.

Argued January 17, 2008.

DATED: December 30, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-4053 (Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe).

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

The Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry participated in the oral argument but discovered facts causing her to recuse from this matter prior to filing of the Opinion. The remaining judges are unanimous in this decision, and this Opinion and Judgment are therefore being filed by a quorum of the panel.


ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the not precedential opinion in the above-captioned case, filed December 24, 2008, be amended as follows:

Page 28, footnote 15, last full sentence, which read:

However, the Court again said that, when punitive damages are substantial, "the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1." Id. at 2634 n. 28.

shall read:

However, the Court again said that, when compensatory damages are substantial, "the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1." Id. at 2634 n. 28.


Summaries of

Jurinko v. Medical Protective Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 30, 2008
Nos. 06-3519 06-3666 (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2008)
Case details for

Jurinko v. Medical Protective Co.

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN P. JURINKO; CYNTHIA JURINKO, H/W as assignees of Paul G…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Dec 30, 2008

Citations

Nos. 06-3519 06-3666 (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2008)

Citing Cases

Smith v. AllState Ins. Co.

In at least two cases, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held that “a finding of bad faith permits an…

Clemens v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

The purpose of an interest award is to make the plaintiff whole. Jurinko v. Medical Protective Co., 305…