## Facts

- Susan R. Henderson sued her former husband, Brian R. Henderson, for defamation arising from communications he sent after their separation and divorce.
- Over nearly three years, Brian mailed Susan a steady stream of letters with degrading terms written on the envelopes, including variations of “wacco” and “whore.”
- After sending letters to Susan, Brian also sent similar letters (or copies) to Susan’s close family members, including her father, sister, and the parties’ adult daughter, repeating the same derogatory language.
- In those communications, Brian also asserted that Susan was mentally unstable or had mental problems.
- At an evidentiary hearing on pretrial motions, Susan produced copies of the letters as exhibits.
- Susan presented witness testimony supporting her claim that the letters were sent and contained the offensive and allegedly defamatory statements.
- Susan also offered evidence that Brian wrote obscene or degrading initials or notations on checks he sent to her.
- Susan moved for an order permitting discovery on punitive damages (including discovery directed to the basis for, and amount of, any punitive award).
- Brian moved to strike Susan’s demand for punitive damages, arguing that punitive damages were not supportable on the showing made.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the record developed at the evidentiary hearing, the defendant was entitled to strike the plaintiff’s punitive-damages demand in a defamation action.
2. Whether the plaintiff could obtain discovery aimed at punitive damages where Rhode Island limits punitive awards to willful, malicious, or similarly aggravated misconduct.

## Decision

- The court denied Brian’s motion to strike the punitive-damages claim.
- The court granted Susan’s motion to proceed with discovery directed to punitive damages.
- The court found that the evidence of repeated, targeted communications using degrading and allegedly defamatory language—sent not only to Susan but also to her family—was enough at this stage to allow a jury to consider punitive damages if the facts were proven at trial.

## Legal Principles

- Rhode Island permits punitive damages only on a heightened showing of aggravated misconduct, such as willful, malicious, wanton, or wicked conduct; ordinary negligence is not enough.
- In defamation and related tort claims, a sustained pattern of abusive and defamatory communications, especially when aimed at humiliating the plaintiff in the eyes of third parties, can support an inference of the state of mind required for punitive damages.
- A trial court may decline to remove a punitive-damages demand before trial when the pleadings and preliminary evidentiary record could support a finding of the required aggravation.
- When a punitive-damages claim remains in the case, discovery reasonably tied to punitive damages may be allowed, subject to the court’s control over scope and burden.

## Conclusion

In *Henderson v. Henderson*, the Rhode Island Superior Court refused to strike a punitive-damages demand and allowed punitive-damages discovery in an ex-spouse defamation suit where the plaintiff produced documents and testimony showing that the defendant sent years of letters and related communications calling her degrading names and claiming she was mentally unstable, including communications sent to her family members.


Henderson v. Henderson, 1996 WL 936966 (1996)