## Facts

- Glenn Y. Hollis, Jr., John E. Hollis, Joseph R. Robinson, and Janette H. Robinson jointly owned approximately nineteen acres containing two ponds and the only driveway access to the Robinson home, which crossed an earthen dam separating the ponds.
- Stonington Development, LLC purchased property upstream in 1999 to develop a residential subdivision and undertook land-clearing and construction activities affecting stormwater flow.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that, over several years, Stonington disregarded stormwater engineers’ recommendations, violated erosion-control and stormwater requirements, and made misleading statements about fixing the runoff problems.
- Runoff and sediment allegedly caused severe flooding that impaired access to the Robinson home and deposited up to several feet of sediment in the ponds, with restoration costs estimated to exceed $250,000.
- Plaintiffs also presented evidence that Stonington sought concessions for easements and a sewer line and, after refusals, threatened condemnation.
- Plaintiffs alleged Stonington promised a tree buffer or conservation easement to protect their property but instead removed trees, leaving the property exposed to increased runoff.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting punitive damages to the jury (willful, wanton, or reckless conduct), such that denial of a directed verdict was proper.
2. Whether the trial court’s punitive-damages jury instructions contained reversible error.
3. Whether the $3.5 million punitive-damages award was constitutionally excessive under due process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Stonington’s directed-verdict motion on punitive damages, finding the evidence permitted a finding of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
- The court found no reversible error in the punitive-damages jury charge when reviewed as a whole.
- The court held the $3.5 million punitive award was excessive under due process and ordered a reduction (remittitur), while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
- The jury’s actual-damages award of $400,000 had been reduced by the trial court to $315,000 to account for a setoff attributable to settling defendants; the appellate court’s excessiveness review proceeded against that post-setoff figure.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages may be submitted to the jury when evidence supports a finding of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, including knowing regulatory violations, persistent disregard of known risks, and deceptive conduct toward affected property owners.
- A punitive-damages charge is reviewed in its entirety; reversal is warranted only when the instructions, taken as a whole, fail to convey the governing standards or cause prejudicial error.
- Due process limits punitive damages; courts assess excessiveness by considering (1) the degree of reprehensibility, (2) the ratio of punitive to actual harm, and (3) comparable civil or criminal sanctions for similar conduct.
- Even when punitive damages are justified by egregious conduct, an award may require remittitur when it is disproportionate to the actual damages and the overall penalty scheme reflected by comparable sanctions.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the verdict insofar as it imposed punitive liability based on evidence of reckless stormwater-related misconduct and rejected claimed instructional error, but held due process required reducing the $3.5 million punitive-damages award as excessive in relation to the post-setoff actual damages and comparable sanctions.


Hollis v. Stonington Dev., LLC, 394 S.C. 383 (Ct. App. 2011)