OPERATION CLAMBAKE: SCIENTOLOGY COURT FILES

Part of a public library containing court papers related to lawsuits involving Scientology in some way. Collected to help lawyers and critics of Scientology in future lawsuits from or against this cult. Please report back if this has been of help, or send new contributions to the collection. Thanks. Andreas Heldal-Lund (heldal@online.no)




                  Larry WOLLERSHEIM, Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                       v.
          CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant.
                                  No. B023193.
            Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.
                                 March 20, 1992.
               As Modified on Denial of Rehearing April 20, 1992.
                          Review Granted July 23, 1992.
               Review Dismissed and Cause Remanded July 15, 1993.
  Former member of religious organization brought action against organization
 alleging intentional and negligent infliction of emotional injury.  The
 Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. C332827, Ronald Swearinger, J.,
 entered judgment on jury verdict awarding $30 million in compensatory and
 punitive damages.  Religious organization appealed.  The Court of Appeal,
 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331, reversed in part and affirmed in part
 as modified.  After the California Supreme Court denied petitions for review,
 the United States Supreme Court, 499 U.S. 914, 111 S.Ct. 1298, 113 L.Ed.2d
 234, granted certiorari, vacated judgment, and remanded case for consideration
 in light of intervening case law.  On remand, the Court of Appeal, Johnson, J.,
 held that:  (1) California procedures for determining punitive damage awards
 past constitutional muster under due process standards announced in
 Haslip ;  (2) punitive damages award was appropriate, but amount, which
 equaled 150% of organization's net worth at time of trial, was excessive, and
 would be reversed unless former member accepted remittitur of punitive damages
 judgment to $2 million;  (3) it was both proper and constitutional for court to
 reduce award through remittitur rather than reverse entire punitive damages
 award for excessiveness;  and (4) religious organization was not exempt
 from punitive damages for acts which were not constitutionally
 protected religious practices.
  Affirmed in part and reversed in part with remittitur.
  *534 Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, and Eric
 M. Lieberman and Terry Gross, New York City, Lenske, Lenske & Heller, and
 Lawrence E. Heller, Woodland Hills, and Michael Lee Hertzberg, New York City,
 for defendant and appellant.
  Cummins and White, Barry Van Sickle, Robert S. Horwitz, and Tina B. Fisher,
 Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

  JOHNSON, Associate Justice.
  This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court to
 reconsider the punitive damage award modified and approved in our earlier
 opinion (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 260
 Cal.Rptr. 331, rev. den. Oct. 26, 1989, cert. grtd., vac. and remd. (1991)
 499 U.S. 914, 111 S.Ct. 1298, 113 L.Ed.2d 234,) in the light of the high
 court's decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip (1991) 499 U.S. 1,
 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1.  To facilitate review of this question, we
 ordered supplemental briefing and heard oral argument from the parties.  Upon
 reconsideration, we conclude the California procedures for determining punitive
 damage awards pass constitutional muster under Haslip.  We further conclude,
 as we did in our prior opinion, the jury acted appropriately in imposing a
 punitive damage award in this case but the amount it awarded is excessive under
 the standards established by California law.  Consequently, we affirm the
 judgment, subject to a remittitur. [FN1]

      FN1. Our prior opinion dealt exhaustively with the tort, freedom of
     religion, evidentiary and procedural issues appellant raised in its
     appeal.  Our rationale for and disposition of those issues remain the
     same.  We see no virtue in repeating that discussion in this opinion.
     Accordingly, except as we may touch some of these topics tangentially in
     the course of addressing the question of the punitive damages award and its
     constitutionality, as to all these issues the original opinion remains and
     is incorporated intact and unaltered in this decision.  The punitive
     damages section and the disposition paragraph of the original opinion,
     however, are replaced in their entirety by this opinion.

  *535 I. THE PROCEEDINGS THUS FAR.
  The original appeal followed a jury award of $30 million in compensatory and
 punitive damages to Larry Wollersheim (Wollersheim), a former member of the
 Church of Scientology (Scientology).  The complaint alleged Scientology
 intentionally and negligently inflicted severe emotional injury on Wollersheim
 through certain practices, including "auditing," "disconnect," and "fair
 game."  Since the trial court granted summary adjudication that Scientology is
 a religion and "auditing" is a religious practice, the trial proceeded under
 the assumption they were.  In our original opinion we concluded there was
 substantial evidence to support a finding Scientology had committed the tort of
 intentional infliction of emotional injury against Wollersheim.  We also found
 sufficient evidence the "auditing" and other practices in this case were
 conducted in a coercive environment.  Thus, none of them qualified as
 "voluntary religious practices" entitled to constitutional protection under the
 First Amendment religious freedom guarantees.  At the same time, we concluded
 both the compensatory and punitive damages the jury awarded in this case were
 excessive.  Consequently, we reduced the compensatory damages to $500,000 and
 the punitive damage award to $2 million.
  The California Supreme Court denied the petitions for review unanimously.
 (Oct. 26, 1989.)  The United States Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari
 on the punitive damages issue and held this case along with ten others (see fn.
 4, infra ) awaiting its disposition of the lead case on the constitutionality
 of punitive damages--Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 499 U.S.
 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032.  After deciding Haslip, the Supreme Court remanded all 11
 punitive damage cases it was holding for the lower courts to review in light
 of Haslip.
  Since the Haslip opinion was limited solely to the issue of the
 constitutionality of punitive damage awards, our reconsideration of our prior
 decision likewise is confined to that issue. [FN2]  We first review the
 *536 procedures and standards California courts apply in deciding the
 appropriateness and amount of punitive damage awards and determine
 whether that process is constitutional under Haslip.  We then examine the
 specific punitive damage award in this case, as reduced by this court, and
 determine whether it passes constitutional muster.

      FN2. After this court filed its original opinion in the instant case the
     United States Supreme Court decided Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res.
     of Oregon v. Smith (1990) 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876.
     In this decision, the high court altered the constitutional standard for
     judging whether a state law which impinges on a citizen's free exercise of
     religion violates the First Amendment.  No longer must there be a
     compelling interest in applying the state law to those whose religion
     prohibits compliance.  After Smith it is sufficient the law is a valid,
     neutral law of general applicability and not aimed at a specific religion
     or at religion in general.  "To make an individual's obligation to obey
     such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious
     beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling'--permitting him,
     by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' (citation
     omitted)--contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense."
     (Id. 110 S.Ct. at p. 1603.)
     The California Supreme Court presently has before it the issue whether the
     religious guarantees of the state Constitution are to fall into line with
     the Smith decision.  Our state's highest court recently granted review
     of an appellate decision holding the "compelling state interest analysis
     still applies under state constitutional law."  (Donahue v. Fair
     Employment & Housing Comm. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 387, 401, 2
     Cal.Rptr.2d 32, rev. gr. Feb. 27, 1992.  See also People v. Woody
     (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69, 394 P.2d 813 and Molko v. Holy
     Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46, pre-
     Smith decisions applying compelling interest balancing test to free
     exercise issues and arguably decided under California Constitution as well
     as United States Constitution.)
     We need not reenter this particular thicket, however.  To the extent we
     reached that step of the analysis, this court applied the compelling
     interest test to its review of the constitutionality of imposing tort
     liability on Scientology's "fair game," "disconnect," and "auditing"
     practices.  (See Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, 212
     Cal.App.3d at pp. 887-899, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331.)  For the most part, as will
     be recalled, we found these activities were not constitutionally protected
     religious practices because Wollersheim was coerced into participating in
     them.  Accordingly, in most instances it was unnecessary to ask the next
     question--whether the state had a "compelling interest" which overrode the
     "free exercise" concerns.  Where that question was reached, however, we
     used the stricter, pre-Smith standard.  Having upheld the
     constitutionality of the state's tort laws under this tougher standard, it
     is unnecessary to reconsider whether those laws would survive the lesser
     standard suggested in Smith.  For the same reason, we also need not
     bother pondering the intriguing question whether the religious guarantees
     of the state Constitution will continue to impose a compelling interest
     test on state laws of general application even though the federal
     Constitution no longer does.

  II. THE PROCESS CALIFORNIA USES FOR DETERMINING AND REVIEWING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
 AWARDS IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE RECENT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION
 IN PACIFIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. HASLIP.
  [1] This court and other California appellate courts already have
 ruled this state's procedures for determining punitive damages comply with the
 "due process" standards enunciated in Haslip.  (Liberty Transport, Inc.
 v. Harry W. Gorst Co. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 417, 280 Cal.Rptr. 159;  Las
 Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1
 Cal.Rptr.2d 301.)  None of these opinions, however, had occasion to consider
 this question in depth.  Consequently, we examine the Haslip opinion in some
 detail and the Alabama punitive damages procedures approved in that decision as
 background for reviewing the punitive damage award the jury levied on
 Scientology.  As further background for our review, we also have
 included an appendix containing a table of appellate opinions in which
 California courts evaluated punitive damage awards.  This table updates a
 similar table which appears in Devlin v. Kearney Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault,
 Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 393-396, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.
  In Haslip an insurance agent was accredited by at least one other insurance
 carrier as well as the defendant, Pacific Mutual.  The plaintiffs were
 employees of a company this agent signed up for a group combined health and
 life insurance policy.  Pacific only supplied the life insurance portion of
 this policy and another of this agent's companies provided the health insurance
 component.  Later the agent embezzled premiums plaintiffs' employer had
 forwarded to him instead of paying them over to the insurance companies.  The
 policies were cancelled.  So when these plaintiffs became sick they suddenly
 and unhappily found out they had no health coverage.  (111 S.Ct. at p.
 1036.)
  The plaintiffs sued the agent and Pacific for fraud.  The other three
 plaintiffs only received compensatory damages, but Haslip won "general damages"
 in the amount of $1,040,000.  (111 S.Ct. at p. 1037.)  The Supreme Court
 concluded at least $840,000 of this represented punitive damages.  (Id. at
 fn. 2.)  Pacific appealed and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, including the
 punitive damages portion of the award, by a divided vote.  After granting
 certiorari the United States Supreme Court also affirmed in a majority opinion
 signed by five Justices.  Two Justices separately concurred and one
 dissented.  (The ninth Justice did not participate in the decision.)
  In assessing the constitutionality of the punitive damages award in Haslip,
 the United States Supreme Court traced the long history and important role of
 punitive damages in Anglo-American law.  On the basis of this historical
 review, the high court ruled, "So far as we have been able to determine, every
 state and federal court that has considered the question has ruled that the
 common-law method for assessing punitive damages does not in itself violate due
 process.  [Citation omitted.]  In view of this consistent history, we cannot
 say that the common-law method for assessing punitive damages is so inherently
 unfair as to deny due process and be per se unconstitutional."  (Id. 499
 U.S. at p. ----, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1043, 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 19.)
  Having ruled punitive damages awards are constitutional in concept, the
 Supreme Court considered whether the specific award in the Haslip case was
 constitutionally acceptable.  The justices set forth the general considerations
 that are to guide the decision of whether a specific award is
 *537 constitutional.   "[U]nlimited jury discretion--or unlimited
 judicial discretion for that matter--in the fixing of punitive damages may
 invite extreme results that jar one's constitutional sensibilities....
 [G]eneral concerns of reasonableness and adequate guidance from the court when
 the case is tried to a jury properly enter into the constitutional calculus."
 (Id. 499 U.S. at p. ----, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1043, 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 20.)
  The Supreme Court described several attributes of the Alabama process for
 determining punitive damage awards and, on that basis, concluded "the award
 here did not lack objective criteria....  [I]n this case it does not cross the
 line into the area of constitutional impropriety."  (Id. 499 U.S. at
 p. ----, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1046, 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 23.)  The high court did not,
 however, hold nor imply the Alabama process was the one and only system which
 accords due process.  Nor did it suggest any particular attribute of the
 Alabama process was absolutely essential to constitutionality. [FN3]  All the
 Supreme Court held was that the Alabama process achieved the constitutional
 requirement of "reasonableness" and "adequate guidance to the jury." [FN4]

      FN3. "Other than explaining that Alabama's procedure passes constitutional
     muster, Haslip offers little guidance as to what would be necessary to
     render a different system unconstitutional."  (George v. International
     Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, etc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th
     52, 119, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 473, 515.)

      FN4. It is clear we are not alone in construing Haslip to allow a
     variety of punitive damage systems which do not necessarily mimic the
     Alabama system under review in that particular case.  According to our
     research, four of the eleven cases the Supreme Court remanded after
     Haslip have been decided thus far and another sixteen other cases (other
     than those decided by California courts) have considered the
     constitutionality of their state punitive damages processes under the
     Haslip opinion.
     In all four remanded cases the courts upheld the state punitive damages
     system under review and affirmed the particular award.  Thus, the punitive
     damages procedures of Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi as well as
     California have passed constitutional muster at least at the first level of
     appeal in these remanded cases.  (Alabama:  Southern Life and Health
     Insurance Co. v. Turner (Ala.1991) 586 So.2d 854;  Georgia:  Hospital
     Authority of Gwinnett County v. Jones (Ga.1991) 261 Ga. 613, 409 S.E.2d
     501;  California:  George v. International Society for Krishna
     Consciousness of California, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th 52, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 473);
     Mississippi:  Eichenseer v. Reserve Life Ins. Co. (5th Cir.1991) 934
     F.2d 1377.)  Of the 16 other cases evaluating the constitutionality of
     punitive damages awards under Haslip, 11 upheld the jurisdiction's
     process and the specific award outright, two upheld the process but found
     the specific award excessive (as we do in the instant case), and 3 found
     their state's process defective in some way.  In total, in these 16 cases
     state or federal courts have applied Haslip and approved the punitive
     damage procedures in 10 states (in addition to California):  Alabama (once
     again):  Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. v. Thornton (Ala.1991) 579 So.2d 619;
     Killough v. Jahandarfard (Ala.1991) 578 So.2d 1041;  Braswell v.
     Conagra, Inc. (11th Cir.1991) 936 F.2d 1169;  Louisiana:  Galjour v.
     General American Tank Car Corp. (E.D.La.1991) 764 F.Supp. 1093;
     Minnesota:  Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (Minn.App.1991) 471
     N.W.2d 670 [procedure approved although specific award found excessive];
     Missouri:  Wolf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Mo.App.1991) 808
     S.W.2d 868;  Oregon:  Oberg v. Honda Motor Co. (1991) 108 Or.App. 43,
     814 P.2d 517;  Pennsylvania:  Coyne v. Allstate Insurance Co.
     (E.D.Pa.1991) 771 F.Supp. 673;  South Carolina:  [Gamble v.
     Stevenson, (S.C.1991) 406 S.E.2d 350;  Texas:  Glasscock v. Armstrong
     Cork Co. (5th Cir.1991) 946 F.2d 1085;  State Farm Mutual Auto
     Insurance Co. v. Zubiate (Tex.App.1991) 808 S.W.2d 590 [procedure
     approved although specific award found excessive];  Wisconsin:  Heideman
     v. American Family Ins. Group (App.1991) 163 Wis.2d 847, 473 N.W.2d
     14.;  Arkansas:  Robertson Oil Co., Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
     (W.D.Ark.1991) 779 F.Supp. 994.
     Several of these courts found procedures constitutional which deviated
     substantially from the Alabama punitive damage system approved in
     Haslip.  For instance, the Fifth Circuit held the Texas procedure
     constitutional even though juries and courts only consider three factors--
     nature of the wrong, degree of culpability, and extent the conduct offends
     propriety and justice--all of them relate solely to the reprehensibility of
     the defendant's conduct.  (Glasscock v. Armstrong Cork Co., supra, 946
     F.2d 1085.)  The Pennsylvania and Missouri procedures were found to
     satisfy Haslip even though the jury awards are reviewed for
     "excessiveness" without any specific, articulated standards.  (Coyne v.
     Allstate Insurance Co., supra, 771 F.Supp. 673;  Wolf v. Goodyear Tire &
     Rubber Co., supra, 808 S.W.2d 868.)  And, the Oregon procedure was approved
     even though the state Constitution severely limits the review of jury
     awards of punitive damages by allowing reversal only when a reviewing court
     finds a lack of any evidence to support the award.  (Oberg v. Honda
     Motor Co., supra, 814 P.2d 517.)

  The Supreme Court found several features of the Alabama process
 worthy of *538 mention.  We consider each and consider how the Supreme
 Court's observations about Alabama criteria and procedures relate to the
 constitutionality of California's punitive damages process.
  A. The Adequacy of Jury Instructions.
  The Supreme Court observed the Alabama jury instructions adequately described
 the purposes of punitive damages as punishing the defendant and deterring "the
 defendant and others from doing such wrong in the future," rather than
 compensating the plaintiff.  The instructions gave the jury "significant
 discretion" in determining punitive damages, but that discretion was limited to
 the amount needed to advance the "state policy concerns" of "deterrence and
 retribution."  Moreover, the degree of discretion allowed "is no greater than
 that pursued in many familiar areas of the law."  (The Supreme Court listed
 several examples including "reasonable care," "due diligence," and "appropriate
 compensation for pain and suffering or mental anguish.")  (Id. 111 S.Ct. at
 pp. 1044.)
  We note in the instant case the trial court gave the standard instructions on
 punitive damages which reflect California law on the same basic subjects as the
 Alabama instructions endorsed in Haslip.  Indeed the California instructions
 given here were, if anything, more extensive and more precise than the Alabama
 instructions described in Haslip.  Not only did these instructions describe
 the purposes of punitive damages and distinguish them from compensatory
 damages, they also informed the jury the amount of damages awarded should bear
 a reasonable relation to the injury the plaintiff sustained and to the
 defendant's financial condition.
  Scientology does not claim the trial court failed to give the
 instructions defining the purposes and scope of punitive damages which the
 Supreme Court found important in Haslip.  Instead Scientology complains the
 trial court failed to give an instruction appellant's counsel requested which
 it now claims was meant to implement the corporate responsibility provision
 found in Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b).  This provision limits
 punitive damages against corporations to acts an officer, director or managing
 agent ordered, ratified or knew about before they happened. [FN5]

      FN5. Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) reads in pertinent part
     as follows:
     "With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious
     disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or
     malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the
     corporation."

  Scientology's requested instruction, however, did not address the "corporate
 responsibility" issue covered in Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b).
 The request did not mention the clause "officer, director, or managing agent"
 nor suggest Scientology's liability for punitive damages was limited to actions
 this class of agent personally did or authorized, ratified, or knew of in
 advance.  Instead the proposed instruction advised jurors they "may not award
 punitive damages against the defendant Church for the intentional oppressive or
 malicious acts of its members, employees, or agents, unless you find that the
 defendant Church of Scientology directed, authorized or ratified such
 intentional oppressive acts."  As proffered, the requested instruction in no
 way even hinted only an officer, director or managing agent" could make the
 "defendant Church of Scientology" liable for punitive damages.
  It is not absolutely clear from the record why Scientology did not request a
 "corporate responsibility" instruction.  Perhaps it was because appellant
 wanted the jurors to think of it as a religious "church" and not a secular
 "corporation."  In any event, the "corporate responsibility" instruction was
 not relevant to the issues framed by the pleadings or raised in the evidence.
 Scientology did not base its defense on a contention Wollersheim's alleged
 injuries were inflicted by out of control lower level employees.  Instead its
 pleadings and evidence emphasized the harmful acts, if any, were
 constitutionally protected religious practices.  The evidence was undisputed
 the "auditing," "fair game," and "disconnect" actions *539 taken in regard
 to Wollersheim were official practices of the Church of Scientology promulgated
 by its leaders, not some ad hoc aberrational acts of individual employees.
 Thus, it is not surprising Scientology did not bother to request an instruction
 it was only liable in punitive damages for what its "officers, directors, or
 managing agents" personally, authorized or ratified.
  [2] By failing to tender a "corporate responsibility" instruction,
 Scientology is foreclosed under California law from claiming the trial court
 committed "reversible error" when it neglected to give such an
 instruction.  (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 951, 160 Cal.Rptr.
 141, 603 P.2d 58 [when defendant corporation failed to tender and the trial
 court failed to give a "corporate responsibility" instruction in a punitive
 damage case] the court concluded "[the defendants] have waived their right to
 complain that a qualified instruction distinguishing between ... vicarious
 liability for compensatory and for punitive damages should have been given".)
  [3][4] Despite having itself failed to propose a "corporate
 responsibility" instruction during trial Scientology now claims it was denied
 federal "due process" under Haslip because the trial court also failed to
 give such an instruction.  That the court's failure to instruct on "corporate
 responsibility" is not a constitutional violation under Haslip is apparent
 from the facts of that case.  There the United States Supreme Court held a
 punitive damage award against an insurance company afforded constitutional due
 process even though the award was imposed for liability for punitive damages
 was predicated solely respondeat superior.  Indeed Alabama law, specifically
 found to satisfy due process in Haslip, permits punitive damages to be
 assessed against corporations without any proof the senior corporate officials
 authorized or ratified the offensive conduct.  (Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
 v. Haslip, supra, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1041.)  Thus, it is apparent federal due
 process does not prohibit the imposition of punitive damages on a corporation
 just because the corporation's leadership remains ignorant of the egregious
 acts of its lesser employees or agents.  It is California law--not
 constitutional due process--which limits corporate liability for punitive
 damages to acts done, authorized, or ratified by senior corporate officials.
 Accordingly, the consequences for failing to give a "corporate responsibility"
 instruction likewise are determined under California law.
  [5] Scientology offers a further argument the failure to give this
 "corporate responsibility" instruction rises to the level of a federal "due
 process" violation.  This argument likewise is without merit.  It treats
 language in Haslip pointing out the "jury was adequately instructed" in that
 case as if the Supreme Court had held the failure to give any possibly relevant
 instruction in a punitive damages case automatically violates the federal "due
 process" clause.  For reasons explained above, while it may have been
 preferable for the trial court to have given a "corporate responsibility"
 instruction in the instant case, Scientology waived its right to complain by
 failing to request the instruction.  Moreover, under the pleadings and evidence
 in this case "corporate responsibility" was not a significant issue.
 Consequently, the "jury was adequately instructed."  The instructions the
 Supreme Court mentioned in Haslip were those the Alabama court delivered
 advising the jurors on the purposes of punitive damages and the
 criteria they were to apply in fixing the amount of those damages.  The trial
 court in the instant case gave instructions covering those same topics.  That
 is the most Haslip and the "due process" clause require.
  [6] Finally, after reviewing the total evidence offered in this trial and
 the actual issues involved, we find that even if it were error to fail to give
 a "corporate responsibility" instruction that error was not prejudicial.
 (Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 663, 670, 117 Cal.Rptr.
 1, 527 P.2d 353;  Williams v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. (1986) 182
 Cal.App.3d 479, 489, 227 Cal.Rptr. 465;  see 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed.
 1985) Appeal, s 352, pp. 355-356.)  There is nothing to suggest the giving of
 these instructions would have *540 substantially enhanced the chances
 Scientology would have prevailed.
  B. Evidence of Defendant's Financial Condition.
  The Supreme Court noted with apparent approval Alabama law excludes any
 evidence of a defendant's wealth even in punitive damages cases.  Thus, "the
 fact finder must be guided by more than the defendant's net worth.  Alabama
 plaintiffs do not enjoy a windfall because they have the good fortune to have a
 defendant with a deep pocket."  (Id. 499 U.S. at p. ----, 111 S.Ct. at p.
 1045, 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 22.)
  [7] For good reason, Scientology does not claim the California punitive
 damages process violates due process because it permitted--and now mandates--
 evidence of a defendant's financial condition in all punitive damages cases.
 (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348.)
 As our Supreme Court has pointed out, the defendant's financial condition is an
 essential limitation on the jury's discretion in this state.  The jury is
 instructed it may only award punitive damages which, taking account of the
 defendant's financial condition, are enough to punish and deter but not so high
 as to impair the defendant's ability to continue functioning.  We do not read
 the United States Supreme Court opinion in Haslip to suggest a state
 punitive damages procedure which admits evidence of financial condition for
 this purpose and with these limiting instructions denies due process to
 defendants.
  C. Review of Punitive Damages at the Trial Court Level.
  In Alabama, the posttrial review of punitive damages awards at the trial court
 level requires the trial judge to scrutinize the amount of those awards for
 possible "excessiveness."  The criteria the Alabama Supreme Court has
 set forth to guide this trial court review include "culpability of the
 defendant's conduct," "desirability of discouraging others from similar
 conduct," and "impact on the parties."
  California law likewise provides for trial court review of the possible
 excessiveness of punitive damage awards.  The criteria guiding this review,
 however, are more precise in many ways than those the United States Supreme
 Court found "meaningful and adequate" in Haslip.  As the California Supreme
 Court listed them in Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910,
 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980, and as reemphasized in Adams v. Murakami,
 supra, 54 Cal.3d. 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348, these criteria fall in
 three main categories--first, the relative egregiousness of the defendant's
 conduct, as measured by the consequences of its acts, second, whether the
 punitive damages award bears a reasonable relationship to the plaintiff's
 injury, and third, whether the punitive damages award bears a reasonable
 relationship to the defendant's financial condition--enough to punish and deter
 the egregious conduct, but not so much as to destroy the defendant.  Nearly all
 of the individual factors the Alabama courts employ are subsumed under one or
 the other of the main categories the California courts use.
  [8] There is a slight difference between California and Alabama in the
 procedure required of trial courts after they have completed their review of a
 punitive damage award.  According to Haslip, Alabama requires trial judges
 to state their findings and reasoning on the record, whether they affirm,
 modify or reverse the award.  (111 S.Ct. at p. 1044.)  California has not
 had such a requirement, although trial judges frequently do so on their own.
  Scientology complains the trial judge in this case denied its lengthy
 new trial and judgment non obstante verdicts (JNOV) motions by filing a simple
 minute order noting those motions were "denied."  Among other things, these
 posttrial motions raised punitive damage issues.  Scientology seizes upon
 language in Haslip to the effect Alabama trial courts reflect "on the
 record" the reasons for refusing to interfere with a jury's punitive damage
 award.  It interprets this to be a federal "due process" requirement and argues
 the *541 trial court's failure to give a detailed account of its reasoning
 "on the record" denied Scientology its constitutional right.
  We first observe that at no place in Haslip did the Supreme Court suggest a
 state punitive damages procedure had to match the Alabama procedure in each and
 every aspect if it were to satisfy federal due process requirements.  (See fn.
 3, supra.)  It neither said nor implied it was essential every state require
 trial judges to state their reasons on the record.
  Indeed the Supreme Court seemed to place far more importance on the
 existence of a set of criteria the trial court is to apply in judging whether
 the jury's verdict was excessive than whether the trial court places its
 reasoning on the record.  After mentioning the fact Alabama requires judges to
 reflect their reasons on the record and then listing the criteria they are to
 apply in evaluating punitive damage awards, the Supreme Court emphasizes:
 "[This] test ensures meaningful and adequate review by the trial court whenever
 a jury has fixed the punitive damages."  (111 S.Ct. at p. 1044, italics
 added.)
  In the instant case, the trial court patiently entertained a lengthy hearing
 on the new trial and JNOV motions which took several hours spread over several
 days.  The judge fully heard Scientology's presentation challenging the
 punitive damages award.  These arguments addressed the criteria California law
 establishes for evaluating the propriety and amount of these awards.  A full
 transcript exists of the arguments made and the evidence relevant to evaluating
 the propriety and amount of punitive damages. [FN6]  Thus the record is
 complete and sufficient for this court on appeal to review the jury verdict on
 punitive damages and the trial court's disposition of Scientology's claim those
 damages were excessive.  The fact the trial court found it unnecessary to set
 forth its reasoning on the record only means the court deviated in this one
 detail from the procedure Alabama apparently follows.  It does not mean
 Scientology was denied a "meaningful and adequate review" of the punitive
 damage award by the trial court or that it was denied due process.

      FN6. The posttrial hearing assumes special importance in Alabama.  Unlike
     California, some of the facts essential to meaningful review of the
     punitive damages award do not appear in the trial record.  In particular,
     Alabama law does not permit either party to introduce any evidence of the
     defendant's financial condition at the trial itself.  In contrast,
     California has always allowed such evidence and now requires it.  (Adams
     v. Murakami, supra, 54 Cal.3d 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348.)
     Trial courts in Alabama accept this sort of evidence for the first time at
     the posttrial hearing on excessiveness of the punitive damage award.  Thus,
     it is only the evidence introduced at this posttrial hearing which allows
     Alabama's trial and appellate courts to conduct a "meaningful review" of
     whether the damages awarded bear a reasonable relation to defendant's
     conduct and financial resources.

  The record produced in the trial court was more than ample for purposes of
 that court's consideration of the punitive damage award and for appellate
 review by this court.  We would have gained little had it reflected the trial
 court's reasoning.  Indeed that record was sufficient for this court to
 determine the punitive damages award should be reduced.  (See p. 535,
 supra.)
  The trial court here did not violate California law by failing to place
 its reasoning on the record nor does California law run afoul of the
 Constitution by failing to require this particular procedural step.
 This is not to say it would not be a preferable practice for trial judges to do
 so.  It is merely to conclude the failure to make a record of the reasoning
 behind the trial court's ruling does not deny the parties of due process under
 the U.S. constitution.  Nor does it constitute reversible error under
 California law.
  There is empirical evidence trial court review in California is "meaningful
 and adequate" which was not available or at least not mentioned by the Supreme
 Court in its evaluation of the Alabama process.  The high court found trial
 court review of punitive damages in Alabama to be "meaningful and adequate"
 without citing any specific examples where trial courts in that state actually
 had reversed or reduced punitive damages awards.  (The high court, on the other
 hand, specifically mentioned *542 cases where such awards had been reduced
 at the appellate level.)  (Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 111
 S.Ct. at p. 1053.)  By way of contrast, the tables incorporated in Devlin v.
 Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep Renault, Inc., supra, 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 202 Cal.Rptr.
 204 and the appendix to this opinion document numerous cases in which
 California trial courts have reduced punitive damages awards, a fact which
 reinforces our finding trial court review of punitive damages awards in
 California is at least as "meaningful and adequate" as is true in Alabama.
  This conclusion is bolstered further by a recent Rand Corporation study of
 posttrial reductions of jury awards in selected California and Illinois
 courts. [FN7]  (Shanley and Peterson, Posttrial Adjustments to Jury Awards
 (Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1987).)  The study revealed verdicts which
 include punitive damage awards are reduced over twice as much on average as
 those limited to compensatory damages--by 43 percent in those with punitive
 damages versus 18 percent in those without.  (Id. at pp. 38-39.) [FN8]
 Furthermore, courts reduce damage awards far more drastically than they are
 through posttrial settlements--by 54 percent on average compared to 33
 percent.  (Id. at pp. 43-46.)  The study further found "[m]ore of those
 cases [in which courts reduced damage awards] resulted from motions to the
 trial court than from the appeals process."  (Id. at p. 45.)  Thus, this
 empirical data supplies strong evidence California trial courts afford
 "meaningful and adequate" review of punitive damages awards in practice as well
 as theory.

      FN7. The study was based on data from three jurisdictions--Cook County,
     Illinois, City and County of San Francisco, California, and the ring of
     counties surrounding it, and "all California counties greater than 150,000
     in population but outside the largest metropolitan areas."  (Shanley and
     Peterson, Posttrial Adjustments to Jury Awards, (Rand Institute for Civil
     Justice, 1987) at p. 3., fn. 15.)  (Despite their size, the latter
     category included cities as large as Sacramento and Bakersfield.)  Although
     the study included a non-California jurisdiction, the authors report
     "[r]esults appear to vary little across the three locations in the
     study."  (Id. at p. ix.)  Consequently, the findings discussed in this
     opinion represent valid evidence of what is happening in this state.

      FN8. "In the 165 cases where punitive damages constituted a part of the
     total award, final payments were only .57 of the total.  In contrast, when
     only compensatory damages were involved, final payments were .82 of the
     total....  This result is not just a function of the larger award size of
     punitive damage cases, but holds for all cases with verdicts greater than
     $100,000....  [F]or cases with verdicts between $100,000 and $999,000,
     those with punitive damages paid an average proportion of .61 [a reduction
     of 39 percent], while those without such damages paid an average proportion
     of .86 [a reduction of 14 percent].  For cases exceeding $1 million, the
     difference is about the same.  With punitive damages the payout rate was .
     55 [a reduction of 45 percent], while without punitive damages the payout
     was .76 [a reduction of 24 percent].  (Shanley and Peterson, Posttrial
     Adjustments to Jury Awards, supra, at p. 38.)
     These findings are corroborated by another Rand study which was confined to
     punitive damage cases in San Francisco, California, and Cook County,
     Illinois.  That study reported punitive damages were reduced an average 50
     percent in the sample it covered from the 1979-1983 period.  (Peterson,
     Sarma and Shanley, Punitive Damages:  Empirical Findings (Rand Institute
     for Civil Justice (1987).)

  D. Review of Punitive Damages at Appellate Level.
  [9] The United States Supreme Court also emphasized the Alabama Supreme
 Court conducted its own review of the possible excessiveness of the punitive
 damage award.  California likewise provides one and sometimes two levels of
 appellate review of these awards.
  By the time of its review of the Haslip award the list of criteria the
 Alabama high court applied had been refined to include the "relationship
 between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the
 defendant's conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred," "degree of
 reprehensibility" and "duration" of that conduct, "defendant's awareness" or
 "concealment" of the conduct, "existence and frequency of past conduct,"
 "profitability to the defendant of the wrongful conduct and the desirability of
 removing that profit and of having the defendant also sustain a loss,"
 defendant's "financial position," "all costs of litigation," and "imposition of
 criminal sanctions" or "other civil awards ... for the same conduct ... these
 also to *543 be taken in mitigation."  (111 S.Ct. at p. 1045.)
  Most but not all of the above criteria are subsumed in the three major
 categories of criteria California appellate courts as well as trial courts
 apply in reviewing punitive damages awards.  The United States Supreme Court
 did not hold or imply that each and every one of the criteria the Alabama
 Supreme Court now applies is essential to due process.  It merely held
 this particular set of criteria was sufficient to satisfy due process, not that
 another set would fail to do so.  The nation's high court emphasized Alabama's
 appellate review "ensures that punitive damages awards are not grossly out of
 proportion to the severity of the offense and have some understandable
 relationship to compensatory damages....  Alabama plaintiffs do not enjoy a
 windfall because they have the good fortune to have a defendant with a deep
 pocket....  [P] The standards provide for a rational relationship in
 determining whether a particular award is greater than reasonably necessary to
 punish and deter."  (111 S.Ct. at pp. 1045-1046.)
  Scientology complains the California criteria do not specifically highlight
 two factors it deems important--"impact on innocent third parties," and
 "punitive damage awards imposed in prior cases for the same conduct."  Nothing
 in Haslip suggests these two particular factors are essential to the
 constitutionality of a formula for reviewing punitive damage awards.  But it is
 worthwhile to note both of them can be subsumed under the existing California
 formula and its overall goal of producing an award that is sufficient to punish
 and deter harmful conduct but not so severe it destroys the defendant.
 Evidence of prior punitive damage awards for the same conduct or the impact on
 "innocent third parties" both bear on that ultimate question and would be
 admissible under one or the other of the three major categories.
  What the United States Supreme Court concluded about the purpose and effect of
 appellate review of punitive damages awards in Alabama is equally true in
 California.  Our high court has emphasized and reemphasized both trial and
 appellate courts should scrutinize these awards to ensure the amount is not
 beyond that required to punish and deter the offending conduct.  The United
 States Supreme Court found appellate review in Alabama had "real effect"
 primarily because it could point to two cases in which the Alabama Supreme
 Court had reduced punitive damage awards.  A survey of California appellate
 decisions reveals many reversals and reductions of punitive damages even in
 cases where the trial court had refused to interfere with the jury's verdict.
 (See appendix, infra, and Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep Renault, Inc.,
 supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at pp. 393-396, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.)
  Scientology complains about the standard of review this court and other
 California courts apply under California law--the traditional "passion and
 prejudice" standard.  Scientology equates California's "passion and prejudice"
 standard with the Vermont and Mississippi standards which the Haslip opinion
 noted had warranted expressions of "concern" from individual Justices in other
 opinions.  (Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 111
 S.Ct. at p. 1045, fn. 10, citing Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc.
 v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989) 492 U.S. 257, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219
 and  Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw (1988) 486 U.S. 71, 108 S.Ct.
 1645, 100 L.Ed.2d 62.)
  Setting aside the fact the Haslip court only mentioned the Vermont
 and Mississippi formulations had raised "concerns" and in no way held they
 violated due process, Scientology is mixing apples and oranges in comparing
 California's version of a "passion and prejudice" standard with what exists in
 these two jurisdictions.  Vermont allows punitive damages to be modified or set
 aside only if "manifestly and grossly excessive" while Mississippi modifies or
 sets aside a punitive damages verdict only if the award "evinces passion, bias
 and *544 prejudice on the part of the jury so as to shock the conscience."
  It is true California uses the rubric of a "presumption the jury acted out of
 passion and prejudice" to justify setting aside or modifying jury awards of
 punitive damages.  But in reality, as discussed earlier, that standard now
 stands for a set of specific criteria, detailed jury instructions, and
 procedures which define "passion and prejudice" in a way which is far more
 precise and far less subjective than the Vermont and Mississippi formulations.
 [FN9]  Indeed as highlighted earlier, the California criteria closely
 parallel--and in some respects are more precise and less subjective--than the
 Alabama criteria found constitutional in Haslip.  We find nothing in
 Haslip suggesting California's version of a "presumption of passion and
 prejudice" standard of review is unconstitutional.  (Accord:  Las Palmas
 Associates v. Las Palmas Center, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d
 301.)  Accordingly, we have no reservations about applying this standard to the
 punitive damage award the jury imposed in the instant case.

      FN9. It is interesting but not essential to our decision in this case to
     note a federal appellate court has held the Mississippi standard of review
     is constitutional under Haslip despite the expressions of "concern"
     reflected in that opinion.  Eichenseer v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., supra,
     934 F.2d 1377 was one of the other cases the United States Supreme Court
     was holding at the time it decided Haslip and remanded for
     reconsideration in the light of Haslip.  On remand the Fifth Circuit
     Court of Appeal evaluated the Mississippi procedures and the specific
     punitive damage award.  The court upheld that award even though it was 500
     times compensatory damages and even though Mississippi courts only reverse
     when an award evinces passion, bias, or prejudice sufficient to "shock the
     conscience."  (Id. at p. 1386.)  "As long as there is some meaningful
     procedural assurance that the amount of the award is not an impulsive
     reaction to the wrongful conduct of the defendant, the award survives the
     procedural protection aspect of the due process analysis...."  (Id. at
     p. 1385.)

  E. The Preponderance of the Evidence Standard as Applied to Punitive Damages
 Issues.
  [10] The United States Supreme Court expressly approved the use of a
 "preponderance of the evidence" standard in deciding punitive damages
 issues.  (Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 111 S.Ct.
 at p. 1046, fn. 11.)  California law has been amended to require the higher
 standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.  (Civ.Code, s 3294, subd.
 (a).)  However, at the time of the trial in the instant case the standard was
 still "preponderance of the evidence."  Yet, as the nation's high court held,
 "the lesser standard prevailing in Alabama--'reasonably satisfied from the
 evidence'--when buttressed, as it is, by the procedural and substantive
 protections outlined above is constitutionally sufficient."  (Pacific Mutual
 Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1040, fn. 11.)  For reasons
 expressed above, California law supplies the same "buttress" of procedural and
 substantive protections, and did so at the time the instant case was tried.
 Accordingly, the use of a "preponderance of the evidence standard" in this case
 was constitutionally sufficient under Haslip.
  III. APPLYING CALIFORNIA'S STANDARDS TO THIS CASE WE CONCLUDE THE PUNITIVE
 DAMAGES AWARD WAS EXCESSIVE AND MUST BE REDUCED OR RETRIED.
  Having determined California punitive damages law is constitutional, we now
 apply that law to the punitive damages award in this case.  We first review the
 guiding principles of California law on this subject, most of which have been
 mentioned in the course of the constitutional discussion.
  A. Applying the California Criteria.
  [11] "It is well established that a reviewing court should examine
 punitive damages and, where appropriate, modify the amount in order to do
 justice."  (Gerard v. Ross (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d. 968, 980, 251 Cal.Rptr.
 604;  Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 463, 129
 Cal.Rptr. 797.)  In reviewing a punitive damages award, the appellate court
 applies *545 a standard similar to that used in reviewing compensatory
 damages, i.e., whether, after reviewing the entire record in the light most
 favorable to the judgment, the award was the result of passion or prejudice.
 (See Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 64, 118
 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608;  Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.,
 supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at p. 388, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.)  However, as discussed
 earlier the test here is more refined, employing three factors to evaluate the
 propriety of the award.
  The first factor is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's
 conduct.  (Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 928, 148
 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980.)  "[C]learly, different acts may be of varying
 degrees of reprehensibility, and the more reprehensible the act, the
 greater the appropriate punishment, assuming all other factors are equal."
 (Ibid.)
  The second factor is the relationship between the amount of the award and the
 actual harm suffered.  (Ibid.;  Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d
 844, 867, 237 Cal.Rptr. 282.)  This analysis ordinarily focuses upon the ratio
 of compensatory damages to punitive damages;  the greater the disparity between
 the two awards, the more likely the punitive damages award is suspect.
 (Seeley v. Seymour, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 867, 237 Cal.Rptr. 282;
 see Little v. Stuyvesant Life Ins. Co. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 451, 469-470,
 136 Cal.Rptr. 653.)
  Finally, a reviewing court will consider the relationship of the punitive
 damages to the defendant's financial condition.  (Adams v. Murakami, supra,
 54 Cal.3d 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348;  Neal v. Farmers Ins.
 Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 928, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980;
 Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at p.
 390, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.)  In applying this factor courts must strike a proper
 balance between inadequate and excessive punitive damage awards.  "While the
 function of punitive damages will not be served if the wealth of the defendant
 allows him to absorb the award with little or no discomfort, the function also
 will not be served by an award which is larger than necessary to properly
 punish and deter."  (Devlin v. Kearney Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., supra,
 155 Cal.App.3d at p. 391, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.)
  [12] In this case, we need not go beyond the third factor--the ratio between
 punitive damages and the defendant's financial condition.  The evidence
 admitted at trial supported the finding the appellant church had a net worth
 of $16 million at the time of trial.  Accepting these figures as true, the
 punitive damages award was 150 percent of appellant's net worth.  Under
 prevailing standards established in prior appellate cases, this ratio is
 clearly excessive.  (Seeley v. Seymour, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 869, 237
 Cal.Rptr. 282 [punitive damages reversed;  award was 200 percent of defendant's
 net worth];  Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 991,
 1012, 193 Cal.Rptr. 206 [punitive damages reduced;  initial award was 35
 percent of defendant's net worth];  Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
 (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 824, 169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141 [punitive damages
 reversed;  award was 58 percent of defendant's net income];  Allard v.
 Church of Scientology, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at pp. 445-446, 453, 129 Cal.Rptr.
 797 [punitive damages reversed;  award was 40 percent of defendant's net
 worth];  compare Devlin v. Kearney Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., supra, 155
 Cal.App.3d at pp. 391-392, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204 [punitive damages affirmed where
 award was 17.5 percent of defendant's net worth];  Schomer v. Smidt (1980)
 113 Cal.App.3d 828, 836-837, 170 Cal.Rptr. 662 [punitive damages affirmed;
 award was 10 percent of defendant's net worth];  Downey Savings & Loan Assn.
 v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.  (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1100, 234
 Cal.Rptr. 835 [punitive damages affirmed;  award was 7.2 percent of defendant's
 net income].)  Accordingly, we reverse the punitive damage award unless the
 plaintiff accepts a remittitur of that judgment to $2 million.
  *546 B. It Is Both Proper and Constitutional to Reduce Rather Than Reverse
 the Punitive Damage Award in This Case.
  [13] Scientology questions a court's authority to reduce a punitive
 damages award even under a remittitur where it has concluded the award was
 excessive under a "presumption of passion and prejudice" standard.  According
 to Scientology, we should be required to reverse the entire punitive damages
 judgment unconditionally.
  Scientology relies for this proposition on a single decision of the United
 States Supreme Court, Minneapolis, etc. Ry. v. Moquin (1931) 283 U.S. 520,
 521, 51 S.Ct. 501, 502, 75 L.Ed. 1243.  There are several grounds on which
 Moquin--and its holding that "no verdict can ... stand which is found to be
 in any degree the result of appeals to passion and prejudice"--could be
 distinguished.  However, that is not necessary since Moquin, is in no sense
 binding on this or any other California court.  Moquin was not announcing a
 rule of federal due process to guide litigation in state courts.  Rather this
 case arose in a federal action tried in state court.  It sets forth a rule of
 federal law and is limited in its application to federal cases.  Indeed the
 United States Supreme Court was careful to highlight the rule it was announcing
 had nothing to do with the rules Minnesota courts apply in state litigation.
 Accordingly, there is no merit to Scientology's claim Moquin supersedes the
 many California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases which have reduced
 punitive damage awards rather than setting them aside after finding those
 awards were excessive and thus "presumed to be the product of passion and
 prejudice."  (See, e.g., Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d
 910, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980;  (Gerard v. Ross, supra, 204
 Cal.App.3d. 968, 980, 251 Cal.Rptr. 604;  Allard v. Church of Scientology,
 supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 453, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797.)  See also other appellate
 cases in which punitive awards were reduced rather than set aside in the
 appendix to this case and the earlier chart in Devlin v. Kearney Mesa
 AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., supra, 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 202 Cal.Rptr. 204.)
  C. Scientology Is Not Exempt From Punitive Damages for Acts, Such as Those
 Involved in This Case, Which Are Not Constitutionally Protected Religious
 Practices.
  [14] In a final challenge, Scientology claims the First Amendment bars the
 imposition of punitive damages on religious organizations for their
 "religious expressions" or, at a minimum, the First Amendment in combination
 with the due process clause requires closer scrutiny of any punitive damage
 award than would be true for other persons or entities.  To support these
 arguments, Scientology cites cases actually involving freedom of speech or
 press not freedom of religion but which it claims "express reservations" about
 the use of punitive damages which might inhibit First Amendment activity
 (i.e., Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d
 789;  Electrical Workers v. Foust (1979) 442 U.S. 42, 99 S.Ct. 2121, 60
 L.Ed.2d 698.)  Notably, several opinions, including one cited by Scientology,
 uphold punitive damage awards in private defamation actions.  (Gertz v.
 Robert Welch, supra;  418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789;  Dun &
 Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86
 L.Ed.2d 593;  Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct.
 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094.)
  The first of Scientology's arguments ignores the fact this court found
 the patterns of activities which justified punitive damages in this case were
 either found not to qualify as "religious expression" at all (i.e., "fair
 game") (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp.
 891-899, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331) or were found not to be constitutionally protected
 because forced on participants like Wollersheim through emotional, economic and
 physical coercion (i.e., "auditing," "disconnect.")  *547 (Id. at pp.
 891-899, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331.)  Thus, the imposition of punitive damages for this
 conduct does not impinge on constitutionally protected religious expression.
 It only punishes and deters reprehensible activities which visit serious harm
 on others in society.  Under California law, punitive damages could be imposed
 on other individuals and entities which engaged in this conduct.  Therefore,
 such damages can be imposed on those who claim to have done these
 constitutionally unprotected actions out of religious motivation.
 (Employment Div. Dept. of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, supra, 494 U.S.
 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595.)
  The "heightened scrutiny" argument merely resurrects the contention and many
 of the authorities Scientology marshalled in support of its earlier position
 the court must closely scrutinize liability claims based on actions which may
 constitute "religious expression."  Once again, the cases cited involve freedom
 of speech not free exercise of religion (i.e., Young v. American Mini
 Theatres (1976) 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310;  New York Times
 Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822;
 Speiser v. Randall (1958) 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460.)
 Moreover, these cases focus on the process the court uses in determining
 whether the speech involved qualifies for constitutional protection at all, not
 whether it warrants a punitive damage award.
  Nonetheless, setting these problems aside, the fundamental problem with
 Scientology's argument is that we already have applied this "heightened
 scrutiny" to the activities for which Scientology claims
 constitutional protection.  We found those activities did not qualify as
 "voluntary religious expression" or in some instances did not qualify as
 "religious expression" at all.  (See Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology,
 supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 891-899, 260 Cal.Rptr. 331.)  We already subjected
 these activities to "heightened scrutiny" and found them to lack constitutional
 protection under the free exercise of religion clause.  Consequently, there is
 no reason to subject them to another round of "heightened scrutiny" in order to
 determine whether they are immune from punitive damages.  The reason for
 "heightened scrutiny" of the punitive damage award evaporated with the finding
 the acts themselves were not constitutionally protected.
  Alternatively, even if we follow Scientology's request and subject the
 punitive damage award in this case to "heightened scrutiny" we arrive at the
 same conclusion as when we subjected the acts themselves to "heightened
 scrutiny."  There is a compelling state interest in punishing and deterring
 this constitutionally unprotected, harmful conduct just as there is a
 compelling state interest in compensating the victims.
                                   DISPOSITION
  The judgment is reversed as to the cause of action for negligent
 infliction of emotional injury.  The judgment as to the cause of action for
 intentional infliction of emotional injury is affirmed with the exception the
 compensatory damage award and the punitive damage award are modified to reduce
 the compensatory damages to $500,000 and the punitive damages to $2 million.
 Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.

  LILLIE, P.J., and FRED WOODS, J., concur.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                     :              :           :              :            :
 :                     :              :           :              :   Trial    :
 :                     :              :           : Relationship :   Court    :
 :                     :              :           :      of      :   Ruling   :
 :                     :              : Original  :   Damages    :   on New   :
 :                     : Compensatory : Punitive  : to Wealth of :   Trial    :
 :          Case       :   Damages    :  Damages  :  Defendant   :   Motion   :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Nelson v. Gaunt  : $450,000     : $1.5 Mil. : No wealth    :            :
 :    (1981) 125       :              :           : data         :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d       :              :           :              :            :
 :    623, 178 Cal.    :              :           :              :            :
 :    Rptr. 167        :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Chodos v.        : $5,146.71    : $200,000  : .08% net     : Denied     :
 :    Insurance Co. of :              :           : profit       :            :
 :    N. America       :              :           : .01% net     :            :
 :    (1981) 126 Cal.  :              :           : worth        :            :
 :    App.3d           :              :           :              :            :
 :    86, 178          :              :           :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.        :              :           :              :            :
 :    831              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Betts v.         : $500,000     : $3 Mil.   : Less than    : Granted    :
 :    Allstate         : against      : against   : one-half     : (Unless    :
 :    Ins. Co. (1984)  : D1 $500,000  : D1        : week's       : joint      :
 :    154 Cal. App.3d  : against D1   :           : earnings     : and        :
 :    688, 201 Cal.    : and D2       :           :              : several    :
 :    Rptr. 528        :              :           :              : compen-    :
 :                     :              :           :              : satory     :
 :                     :              :           :              : remitted   :
 :                     :              :           :              : to         :
 :                     :              :           :              : $50,000.)  :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Goshgarian v.    : $714.29      : $15,000   : 10.7% net    :            :
 :    George (1984)    :              :           : worth        :            :
 :    161 Cal.         :              :           :              :            :
 :    App.3d 1214,     :              :           :              :            :
 :    208 Cal.Rptr.    :              :           :              :            :
 :    321              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Hobbs v.         : $96,000      : $220,000  : 1% net worth : Denied     :
 :    Bateman,         : against      : against   :              :            :
 :    Eichler,         : D1 and D2    : D1        :              :            :
 :    Hill, Richards,  :              :           :              :            :
 :    Inc. (1985) 164  :              :           :              :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d       :              :           :              :            :
 :    174, 210         :              :           :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.        :              :           :              :            :
 :    387              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Sprague v.       : $100,000     : $5 Mil.   : No wealth    : Denied     :
 :    Equifax, Inc.    :              :           : data         : (Condi-    :
 :    (1985) 166       :              :           :              : tional     :
 :    Cal.App.3d       :              :           :              : upon re-   :
 :    1012,            :              :           :              : duction    :
 :    213 Cal.Rptr.    :              :           :              : in puni-   :
 :    69               :              :           :              : tives      :
 :                     :              :           :              : to $1      :
 :                     :              :           :              : Mil.)      :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                     :              :           :                  Final    :
 :                     : Relationship :           :    Final     :  Ratio of  :
 :                     :      of      : Appellate : Relationship :  Punitive  :
 :                     :   Punitive   :   Court   : of Punitive  :  Damages   :
 :                     :   Damages    : Decision  :  Damages to  :  to Comp-  :
 :                     : to Wealth of :    (Re    :  Wealth of   :  ensatory  :
 :          Case       :  Defendant   : Damages)  :  Defendant   :  Damages   :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Nelson v. Gaunt  : No wealth    : Affirmed  : No wealth    : 3.3 to 1   :
 :    (1981) 125       : data         :           : data         :            :
 :    Cal. App.3d 623  :              :           :              :            :
 :    178 Cal.Rptr.    :              :           :              :            :
 :    167              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Chodos v.        : .08% net     : Affirmed  : .08% net     : 40 to 1    :
 :    Insurance Co.    : profit       :           : profit       :            :
 :    of N. America    : .01% net     :           : .01% net     :            :
 :    (1981) 126 Cal.  : worth        :           : worth        :            :
 :    App.3d 86,       :              :           :              :            :
 :    178 Cal. Rptr.   :              :           :              :            :
 :    528              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Betts v.         : Less than    : Affirmed  : Less than    : 5.5 to 1   :
 :    Allstate         : one-half     :           : one-half     :            :
 :    Ins. Co. (1984)  : week's       :           : week's       :            :
 :    154 Cal.App.3d   : earnings     :           : earnings     :            :
 :    688, 201         :              :           :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.        :              :           :              :            :
 :    528              :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Goshgarian v.    : 10.7% net    : Affirmed  : 5.4% net     : 10.5 to    :
 :    George (1984)    : worth        : Compensa- :              : 1          :
 :    161 Cal. App.3d  :              : tory      :              :            :
 :    1214,            :              : damages.  :              :            :
 :    208 Cal. Rptr.   :              : Punitives :              :            :
 :                     :              : reversed. :              :            :
 :                     :              : (Unless   :              :            :
 :                     :              : remitted  :              :            :
 :                     :              : to        :              :            :
 :                     :              : $7,500.)  :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Hobbs v.         : 1% net worth : Affirmed  : 1% net worth : 2.3 to 1   :
 :    Bateman,         :              :           :              :            :
 :    Eichler,         :              :           :              :            :
 :    Hill, Richards,  :              :           :              :            :
 :    Inc. (1985) 164  :              :           :              :            :
 :    Cal. App.3d      :              :           :              :            :
 :    174, 210 Cal.    :              :           :              :            :
 :    Rptr.387         :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Sparague v.      : No wealth    : Affirmed  : No wealth    : 10 to 1    :
 :    Equifax, Inc.    : data         :           : data         : (If remit- :
 :    (1985) 166       :              :           :              : titur      :
 :    Cal. App.3d      :              :           :              : accept-    :
 :    1012, 213 Cal.   :              :           :              : ed.)       :
 :    Rptr. 69         :              :           :              :            :
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :              :              :            :
 :                   :              :              :              :   Trial    :
 :                   :              :              : Relationship :   Court    :
 :                   :              :              : of Punitive  :   Ruling   :
 :                   :              :   Original   :   Damages    :   on New   :
 :                   : Compensatory :   Punitive   : to Wealth of :   Trial    :
 :         Case      :   Damages    :   Damages    :  Defendant   :   Motion   :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Greenfield v.  : $350,000     : $400,000     : D2 earned    : Granted    :
 :    Spectrum       : against D1   : against D1   : $2,000/mo.   : (Unless    :
 :    Investment     : and D2       : $42,500      : and owned    : Compensa-  :
 :    Corp. (1985)   :              : against D2   : automobile   : tory re-   :
 :    174            :              :              :              : duced to   :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :              :              : $150,000;  :
 :    111,           :              :              :              : punitives  :
 :    219 Cal.Rptr.  :              :              :              : against D1 :
 :    805            :              :              :              : reduced    :
 :                   :              :              :              : to         :
 :                   :              :              :              : $200,000;  :
 :                   :              :              :              : punitives  :
 :                   :              :              :              : against    :
 :                   :              :              :              : D2 reduced :
 :                   :              :              :              : to         :
 :                   :              :              :              : $15,000.)  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    West v.        : $500,000     : $10 Mil.     : .44% net     : Granted    :
 :    Johnson        :              :              : worth        : (Unless    :
 :    & Johnson      :              :              :              : compensa-  :
 :    Products, Inc. :              :              :              : tory       :
 :    (1985) 174     :              :              :              : damages    :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :              :              : remitted   :
 :    831,           :              :              :              : to         :
 :    220 Cal.Rptr.  :              :              :              : $100,000   :
 :    437            :              :              :              : and puni-  :
 :                   :              :              :              : tives to   :
 :                   :              :              :              : $1 Mil.)   :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Campbell v.    : $181,291.13  : $99,393.19   : No wealth    : None       :
 :    McClure (1986) :              : (To be       : data         :            :
 :    182 Cal.App.3d :              : reduced to   :              :            :
 :    806, 227       :              : $1,000 if    :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : paid by      :              :            :
 :    450            :              : dead line.)  :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Greenup v.     : $338,000     : $338,000     : No wealth    : None       :
 :    Rodman (1986)  :              :              : data         :            :
 :    42 Cal.3d.     :              :              :              :            :
 :    822, 231       :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :              :              :            :
 :    220, 726       :              :              :              :            :
 :    P.2d 1295      :              :              :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Barragan v.    : $1 Mil.      : $2 Mil.      : No wealth    : None       :
 :    Banco BCH      :              :              : data         :            :
 :    (1986) 188     :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :              :              :            :
 :    283, 232       :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr. 758  :              :              :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :              :              :            :
 :                   :              :              :              :   Final    :
 :                   :              :              :    Final     :  Ratio of  :
 :                   : Relationship :  Appellate   : Relationship :  Punitive  :
 :                   : of Punitive  :    Court     : of Punitive  :  Damages   :
 :                   :   Damages    :   Decision   :  Damages to  : to Compen- :
 :                   : to Wealth of :     (Re-     :  Wealth of   :   satory   :
 :         Case      :  Defendant   :   Damages)   :  Defendant   :  Damages   :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Greenfield v.  : D2 earned    : Reinstated   : D2 earned    : D1:1.1 to: :
 :    Spectrum       : $2,000/mo.   : original     : $2,000/mo.   : 1 D2:.12   :
 :    Investment     : owned        : judgments    : owned        : to 1       :
 :    Corp.          : automobile   :              : automoble    :            :
 :    (1985) 174     :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :              :              :            :
 :    111, 219       :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :              :              :            :
 :    805            :              :              :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    West v.        : .04% net     : Affirmed     : .04% net     : 10 to 1    :
 :    Johnson        : worth        :              : worth        :            :
 :    & Johnson      :              :              :              :            :
 :    Products, Inc. :              :              :              :            :
 :    (1985) 174     :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :              :              :            :
 :    831, 220       :              :              :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :              :              :            :
 :    437            :              :              :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Campbell v.    : No wealth    : Affirmed     : No wealth    : .55 to 1   :
 :    McClure (1986) : data         :              : data         : (If        :
 :    182 Cal.       :              :              :              : deadline   :
 :    App.3d         :              :              :              : met, .01   :
 :    806, 227       :              :              :              : to 1.)     :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :              :              :            :
 :    450            :              :              :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Greenup v.     : No wealth    : Ct. of       : No wealth    : 6.7 to 1   :
 :    Rodman (1986)  : data         : Appeal       : data         :            :
 :    42             :              : affd.        :              :            :
 :    Cal.3d         :              : Supreme Ct.  :              :            :
 :    822, 231       :              : revd. and    :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : reduced      :              :            :
 :    220, 726       :              : comp-        :              :            :
 :    P.2d 1295      :              : ensatory     :              :            :
 :                   :              : damages to   :              :            :
 :                   :              : $15,000 and  :              :            :
 :                   :              : punitives to :              :            :
 :                   :              : $100,000.    :              :            :
 :                   :              : (Unless D    :              :            :
 :                   :              : files        :              :            :
 :                   :              : amended      :              :            :
 :                   :              : complaint.)  :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Barragan v.    : No wealth    : Modified     :      --      :     --     :
 :    Banco BCH      : data         : Compensatory :              :            :
 :    (1986) 188     :              : damages to   :              :            :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : $500,000;    :              :            :
 :    283, 232       :              : reversed     :              :            :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : punitives    :              :            :
 :    758            :              : and remanded :              :            :
 :                   :              : to determine :              :            :
 :                   :              : defendant's  :              :            :
 :                   :              : net worth    :              :            :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :               :               :          :
 :                   :              :               :               :  Trial   :
 :                   :              :               : Relationship  :  Court   :
 :                   :              :               :  of Punitive  :  Ruling  :
 :                   :              :   Original    :    Damages    :  on New  :
 :                   : Compensatory :   Punitive    : to Wealth of  :  Trial   :
 :         Case      :   Damages    :    Damages    :   Defendant   :  Motion  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Downey S&L     : $152,983.43  : $5 Mil.       : 1.9% net      : Denied   :
 :    Assn. v. Ohio  :              :               : worth; 1% net :          :
 :    Casualty       :              :               : worth of      :          :
 :    Ins. Co.       :              :               : parent co.    :          :
 :    (1987) 189     :              :               : 16.7% net     :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               : annual        :          :
 :    1072,          :              :               : income; 3.64% :          :
 :    234 Cal.Rptr.  :              :               : net annual    :          :
 :    835            :              :               : income of     :          :
 :                   :              :               : parent co.;   :          :
 :                   :              :               : 7.14%         :          :
 :                   :              :               : average net   :          :
 :                   :              :               : annual income :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    DeTomaso v.    : $265,000     : $300,000      : No wealth     : Granted  :
 :    Pan.           :              :               : data          : (Unless  :
 :    Am. World      :              :               :               : remittur :
 :    Airways, Inc.  :              :               :               : of       :
 :    (1987) 43      :              :               :               : $358,393 :
 :    Cal.3d         :              :               :               : accept-  :
 :    517, 235       :              :               :               : ed.)     :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    292, 733       :              :               :               :          :
 :    P.2d 614       :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Seeley v.      : $200,000     : $2.66 Mil.    : 200% net      : Denied   :
 :    Seymour        : joint        : against D1    : worth         :          :
 :    (1987) 190     : and several  :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     : among 5      :               :               :          :
 :    844, 237       : defendants   :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    282            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Palmer v. Ted  : $29,500      : $150,000      : No wealth     : Denied   :
 :    Stevens Honda  :              :               : data          :          :
 :    (1987) 193     :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :               :          :
 :    530, 238       :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    363            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Castaic Clay   : $529,000     : $200,000      : No wealth     :          :
 :    Manuf. Co.     :              :               : data          :          :
 :    v. Gus         :              :               :               :          :
 :    Dedes (1987)   :              :               :               :          :
 :    195            :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :               :          :
 :    444, 240       :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    652            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :               :               :  Final   :
 :                   : Relationship :               :     Final     : Ratio of :
 :                   :      of      :   Appellate   : Relationship  : Punitive :
 :                   :   Punitive   :     Court     :  of Punitive  : Damages  :
 :                   :   Damages    :   Decision    :  Damages to   : to Comp- :
 :                   : to Wealth of :      (Re      :   Wealth of   : ensatory :
 :         Case      :  Defendant   :   Damages)    :   Defendant   : Damages  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Downey S&L     : (Same as     : Affirmed      : (Same as      : 33 to 1  :
 :    Assn. v. Ohio  : column       :               : column        :          :
 :    Casualty Ins.  : 3)           :               : 3)            :          :
 :    Co. (1987) 189 :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :               :          :
 :    1072, 234      :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    835            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    DeTomaso v.    : No wealth    : Ct. of Appeal : No wealth     :    --    :
 :    Pan.           : data         : affd. and     : data          :          :
 :    Am. World      :              : reinstated    :               :          :
 :    Airways, Inc.  :              : original      :               :          :
 :    (1987) 43      :              : judgment      :               :          :
 :    Cal.3d         :              : Supreme Ct.   :               :          :
 :    517, 235       :              : reversed.     :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : (Tort         :               :          :
 :    292, 733       :              : action        :               :          :
 :    P.2d 614       :              : preempted by  :               :          :
 :                   :              : Federal       :               :          :
 :                   :              : Railway       :               :          :
 :                   :              : Labor Act;    :               :          :
 :                   :              : breach of     :               :          :
 :                   :              : warranty;     :               :          :
 :                   :              : cause of      :               :          :
 :                   :              : action        :               :          :
 :                   :              : remanded      :               :          :
 :                   :              : for new       :               :          :
 :                   :              : trial.)       :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Seeley v.      : 200% net     : Reversed      :      --       :    --    :
 :    Seymour        : worth        : compen-       :               :          :
 :    (1987) 190     :              : satory and    :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : punitive      :               :          :
 :    844, 237       :              : damages as    :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : excessive     :               :          :
 :    282            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Palmer v. Ted  : No wealth    : Punitive      : No wealth     :    --    :
 :    Stevens Honda  : data         : damages       : data          :          :
 :    (1987) 193     :              : reversed      :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : because       :               :          :
 :    530, 238       :              : evidence of   :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : actual        :               :          :
 :    363            :              : damages       :               :          :
 :                   :              : improperly    :               :          :
 :                   :              : excluded      :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Castaic Clay   : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No wealth     : .38 to 1 :
 :    Manuf. Co.     : data         :               : data          :          :
 :    v. Gus         :              :               :               :          :
 :    Dedes (1987)   :              :               :               :          :
 :    195            :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :               :          :
 :    444, 240       :              :               :               :          :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :               :          :
 :    652            :              :               :               :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :               :              :           :
 :                   :              :               : Relationship :   Trial   :
 :                   :              :               :      of      :   Court   :
 :                   :              :               :   Punitive   :  Ruling   :
 :                   :              :   Original    :   Damages    :  on New   :
 :                   : Compensatory :   Punitive    : to Wealth of :   Trial   :
 :         Case      :   Damages    :    Damages    :  Defendant   :  Motion   :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Gerard v. Ross : $8,200       : $50,000       : 70% gross    : Granted   :
 :    (1988) 204     : against D1   : against       : income       : unless    :
 :    Cal.App.3d     : and D2       : D1;           : of D1, 11%   : punitives :
 :    968, 251       :              : $100,000      : net worth    : against   :
 :    Cal.Rptr. 604  :              : against D2    : of D1,       : D1 remit- :
 :                   :              :               : 100% net     : ted to    :
 :                   :              :               : worth of     : $25,000   :
 :                   :              :               : D2, 111% to  :           :
 :                   :              :               : 67%          :           :
 :                   :              :               : annual net   :           :
 :                   :              :               : income of D2 :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Gagnon v.      : $70,000      : $2.5 Mil.     : No Wealth    :           :
 :    Continental    :              :               : data         :           :
 :    Casualty Co.   :              :               :              :           :
 :    (1989) 211     :              :               :              :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :              :           :
 :    1598, 260      :              :               :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :              :           :
 :    305            :              :               :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Wollersheim v. : $5 Mil.      : $25 Mil.      : 156% net     : Denied    :
 :    Church of      :              :               : worth        :           :
 :    Scientology of :              :               :              :           :
 :    California     :              :               :              :           :
 :    (1989)         :              :               :              :           :
 :    212 Cal.App.3d :              :               :              :           :
 :    872, 260       :              :               :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :              :           :
 :    331            :              :               :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Dumas v.       : $47,000      : $141,000      : No wealth    : Denied    :
 :    Stocker        :              :               : data         :           :
 :    (1989) 213     :              :               :              :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               :              :           :
 :    1262, 262      :              :               :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :              :           :
 :    311            :              :               :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Storage        : $1 Mil.      : $75,000       : 50%-37.5%    :           :
 :    Services       : 044,250      : against D1    : net worth    :           :
 :    v. Osterbaan   : against D1   : $150,000      : of D1        :           :
 :    (1989) 214     : and D2       : against D2    : 144%-129%    :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              :               : gross income :           :
 :    498, 262       :              :               : of D1        :           :
 :    689            :              :               : No wealth    :           :
 :                   :              :               : data on D2   :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                   :              :               :    Final     :   Final   :
 :                   : Relationship :               : Relationship : Ratio of  :
 :                   :      of      :   Appellate   :      of      : Punitive  :
 :                   :   Punitive   :     Court     :   Punitive   :  Damages  :
 :                   :   Damages    :   Decision    :   Damages    : to Comp-  :
 :                   : to Wealth of :      (Re      : to Wealth of : ensatory  :
 :         Case      :  Defendant   :   Damages)    :  Defendant   :  Damages  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Gerard v. Ross : 5.6% net     : Reduced       : 5.6% net     : D1: 3.1   :
 :    (1988) 204     : worth of     : punitives     : worth of     : to 1      :
 :    Cal.App.3d     : D1, 35%      : against D2 to : D1, 35%      :           :
 :    968, 251       : gross        : $1,000        : gross        :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr. 604  : income of    :               : income of    : D2: .12   :
 :                   : D1, 100%     :               : D1, 1% net   : to 1      :
 :                   : net worth    :               : worth of     :           :
 :                   : of D2,       :               : D2,          :           :
 :                   : 111%-67%     :               : 1.11%-.67%   :           :
 :                   : annual net   :               : annual net   :           :
 :                   : income of D2 :               : income of D2 :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Gagnon v.      : No wealth    : Compersatory  :      --      : Plaintiff :
 :    Continental    : data         : and punitive  :              : not       :
 :    Casualty Co.   :              : damages       :              : entitled  :
 :    (1989) 211     :              : reversed      :              : to comp-  :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : (Plaintiff    :              : ensatory  :
 :    1598, 260      :              : not           :              : damages   :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : entitled to   :              :           :
 :    1598, 260      :              : compensatory  :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : damages and   :              :           :
 :    305            :              : prejudicial   :              :           :
 :                   :              : error made in :              :           :
 :                   :              : jury instruc- :              :           :
 :                   :              : tions.)       :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Wollersheim v. : 156% net     : Modified      : 13% net      : 4 to 1    :
 :    Church of      : worth        : punitives     : worth        :           :
 :    Scientology of :              : to $2         :              :           :
 :    California     :              : Mil. and      :              :           :
 :    (1989) 212     :              : compensatory  :              :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : damages to    :              :           :
 :    872, 260       :              : $500,000      :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              :               :              :           :
 :    331            :              :               :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Dumas v.       : No wealth    : Reversed      : No wealth    :    --     :
 :    Stocker        : data         : punitives and : data         :           :
 :    (1989) 213     :              : remanded for  :              :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     :              : redetermina-  :              :           :
 :    1262 262       :              : tion based    :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      :              : on            :              :           :
 :    311            :              : defendant's   :              :           :
 :                   :              : net wealth    :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Storage        : 50%-37.5%    : Reversed      :      --      :    --     :
 :    Services       : net          : punitives     :              :           :
 :    v. Osterbaan   : worth of D1  : against D1 as :              :           :
 :    (1989) 214     : 144%-129%    : excessive.    :              :           :
 :    Cal.App.3d     : gross income : (If plaintiff :              :           :
 :    498, 262       : of D1        : consents to   :              :           :
 :    Cal.Rptr.      : No wealth    : remittitur    :              :           :
 :    689            : data         : modified to   :              :           :
 :                   : on D2        : $20,000;      :              :           :
 :                   :              : reverses      :              :           :
 :                   :              : punitives     :              :           :
 :                   :              : against       :              :           :
 :                   :              : D2 in         :              :           :
 :                   :              : absence of    :              :           :
 :                   :              : data on net   :              :           :
 :                   :              : wealth.       :              :           :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                    :              :               :              :          :
 :                    :              :               : Relationship :  Trial   :
 :                    :              :               :      of      :  Court   :
 :                    :              :               :   Punitive   :  Ruling  :
 :                    :              :   Original    :   Damages    :  on New  :
 :                    : Compensatory :   Punitive    : to Wealth of :  Trial   :
 :        Case        :   Damages    :    Damages    :  Defendant   :  Motion  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Fenlon v. Brock    : $95,000      : $40,000       : No wealth    : Denied   :
 : (1989) 216         :              :               : data         :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 1174,   :              :               :              :          :
 : 265 Cal.Rptr. 324  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Armitage v.        : $25,000      : $1,000        : No wealth    : Denied   :
 : Decker (1990) 218  :              :               : data         :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 887,    :              :               :              :          :
 : 267 Cal.Rptr. 399  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Roberts v. Ford    : $292,224.09  : $750,000      : No wealth    : Denied   :
 : Aerospace &        :              :               : data         :          :
 : Communications     :              :               :              :          :
 : Corp. (1990) 224   :              :               :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 793,    :              :               :              :          :
 : 274 Cal.Rptr. 139  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Pat Rose Assoc. v. : About $5.2   : $3 Mil.       : No wealth    :          :
 : D. Wesley Coombe   : Mil.         :               : data         :          :
 : (1990) 225         :              :               :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 9, 275  :              :               :              :          :
 : Cal.Rptr. 1        :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Liberty Transport, : $82,500      : D1:           : No wealth    : Denied   :
 : Inc. v. Harry W.   : against      : $40,000       : data         :          :
 : Gorst Company,     : D1 and D2    : D2:           :              :          :
 : Inc. (1991) 229    :              : $400,000      :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 417,    :              :               :              :          :
 : 280 Cal.Rptr. 159  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Adams. v.          : $274,266     : $750,000      : No wealth    : None     :
 : Murakami (1991)    : after        : (after        : data         :          :
 : 54 Cal.3d 105,     : adjustment   : adjustment    :              :          :
 : 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, : by trial     : by trial ct.) :              :          :
 : 813 P.2d 1348      : ct.)         :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Las Palmas         : $1 Mil.      : $10 Mil.      : 2% net value : Denied   :
 : Assoc. v. Las      : 502,393      :               :              :          :
 : Palmas Center      :              :               :              :          :
 : Assoc.             :              :               :              :          :
 : (1991) 235         :              :               :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 1220,   :              :               :              :          :
 : 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 301  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                    :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                    :              :               :              :  Final   :
 :                    :              :               :              :  Ratio   :
 :                    :              :               :              :    of    :
 :                    :              :               :              :  Puni-   :
 :                    :              :               :              :   tive   :
 :                    : Relationship :               :    Final     : Damages  :
 :                    :      of      :               : Relationship :    to    :
 :                    :   Punitive   :   Appellate   : of Punitive  :  Comp-   :
 :                    :   Damages    :     Court     :  Damages to  :  ensa-   :
 :                    : to Wealth of :   Decision    :  Wealth of   :   tory   :
 :        Case        :  Defendant   : (Re Damages)  :  Defendant   : Damages  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Fenlon v. Brock    : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No wealth    : .42 to 1 :
 : (1989) 216         : data         :               : data         :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 1174,   :              :               :              :          :
 : 265 Cal.Rptr. 324  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Armitage v.        : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No wealth    : .04 to 1 :
 : Decker (1990) 218  : data         :               : data         :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 887,    :              :               : (Court       :          :
 : 267. Cal.Rptr. 399 :              :               : infers       :          :
 :                    :              :               : from         :          :
 :                    :              :               : record that  :          :
 :                    :              :               : $1,000       :          :
 :                    :              :               : not          :          :
 :                    :              :               : excessive)   :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Roberts v. Ford    : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No wealth    : 2.6 to 1 :
 : Aerospace &        : data         :               : data         :          :
 : Communications     :              :               :              :          :
 : Corp. (1990) 224,  :              :               :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 793,    :              :               :              :          :
 : 274 Cal.Rptr. 139  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Pat Rose Assoc. v. : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No wealth    : .58 to 1 :
 : D. Wesley Coombe   : data         : modified      : data         :          :
 : (1990) 225         :              : judgment      :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 9, 275  :              : allowing for  :              :          :
 : Cal.Rptr. 1        :              : offset        :              :          :
 :                    :              : against       :              :          :
 :                    :              : compensatory  :              :          :
 :                    :              : damages       :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Liberty Transprot, : No wealth    : Affirmed      : No Wealth    : D1: .48  :
 : Inc. v. Harry W.   : data         :               : data         : to 1     :
 : Gorst Company,     :              :               :              : D2: 4.8  :
 : Inc. (1991) 229    :              :               :              : to 1     :
 : Cal.App.3d 417,    :              :               :              :          :
 : 280 Cal.Rptr. 159  :              :               :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Adams v.           : No wealth    : Ct. of Appeal : No wealth    :    --    :
 : Murakami (1991)    : data         : affd.         : data         :          :
 : 54 Cal.3d 105,     :              : Supreme Ct.   :              :          :
 : 284 Cal.Rptr. 318  :              : reversed      :              :          :
 : 813 P.2d 1348      :              : punitives     :              :          :
 :                    :              : because of    :              :          :
 :                    :              : lack of       :              :          :
 :                    :              : evidence of   :              :          :
 :                    :              : defendant's   :              :          :
 :                    :              : wealth        :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Las Palmas         : 2% net value : Reduced       : .4%          : 4.3 to 1 :
 : Assoc. v. Las      :              : punitives     :              :          :
 : Palmas Center      :              : to $2 Mil.    :              :          :
 : Assoc. (1991) 235  :              : Reduced       :              :          :
 : Cal.App.3d 1220,   :              : Compensatory  :              :          :
 : 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 301  :              : to            :              :          :
 :                    :              : $464,786      :              :          :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                  :                :              :                :         :
 :                  :                :              :  Relationship  :  Trial  :
 :                  :                :              :       of       :  Court  :
 :                  :                :              :    Punitive    : Ruling  :
 :                  :                :   Original   :    Damages     : on New  :
 :                  :  Compensatory  :   Punitive   :  to Wealth of  :  Trial  :
 :        Case      :    Damages     :   Damages    :   Defendant    : Motion  :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Douglas v.    : $10,624        : $187,000     : Per defendant, : Denied  :
 :    Ostermeier    :                :              : nearly 50%     :         :
 :    (1991)        :                :              : value of his   :         :
 :    1 Cal.App.    :                :              : business       :         :
 :    4th 729,      :                :              : property. Per  :         :
 :    2 Cal.        :                :              : plaintiff,     :         :
 :    Rptr.2d       :                :              : "small         :         :
 :    594           :                :              : fraction" of   :         :
 :                  :                :              : defendant's    :         :
 :                  :                :              : net worth      :         :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Washington v. : $10,000        : $50,000      : More than 30%  : Denied  :
 :    Farlice       :                :              : admitted worth :         :
 :    (1991) 1      :                :              :                :         :
 :    Cal.App.      :                :              :                :         :
 :    4th 766,      :                :              :                :         :
 :    2 Cal.        :                :              :                :         :
 :    Rptr.2d       :                :              :                :         :
 :    607           :                :              :                :         :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :                  :                :              :                :         :
 :                  :                :              :                :  Final  :
 :                  :                :              :                :  Ratio  :
 :                  :                :              :                :   of    :
 :                  :                :              :                :  Puni-  :
 :                  :                :              :                :  tive   :
 :                  :  Relationship  :              :     Final      : Damages :
 :                  :       of       :              :  Relationship  :   to    :
 :                  :    Punitive    :  Appellate   :  of Punitive   :  Comp-  :
 :                  :    Damages     :    Court     :   Damages to   :  ensa-  :
 :                  :  to Wealth of  :   Decision   :   Wealth of    :  tory   :
 :        Case      :   Defendant    : (Re Damages) :   Defendant    : Damages :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Douglas v.    : Per defendant, : Affirmed     : Per defendant, : 18 to 1 :
 :    Ostermeier    : nearly 50%     :              : nearly 50%     :         :
 :    (1991) 1 Cal. : value of his   :              : value of his   :         :
 :    App. 4th      : business       :              : business       :         :
 :    729, 2 Cal.   : property. Per  :              : property. Per  :         :
 :    Rptr.2d       : plaintiff,     :              : plaintiff      :         :
 :    594           : "small         :              : "small         :         :
 :                  : fraction" of   :              : fraction" of   :         :
 :                  : defendant's    :              : defendant's    :         :
 :                  : net worth      :              : net worth      :         :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :    Washington    : More than 30%  : Affirmed     :       --       :   --    :
 :    v. Farlice    : admitted worth : compensatory :                :         :
 :    (1991) 1      :                : damages.     :                :         :
 :    Cal. App.     :                : Reversed     :                :         :
 :    4th 766,      :                : punitives.   :                :         :
 :    2 Cal.        :                : (Remanded    :                :         :
 :    Rptr.2d       :                : for redeter- :                :         :
 :    607           :                : mination on  :                :         :
 :                  :                : evidence of  :                :         :
 :                  :                : defendant's  :                :         :
 :                  :                : financial    :                :         :
 :                  :                : condition.)  :                :         :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


End of file...