Recent case law suggests that the standard of proof for awarding punitive damages under Delaware law is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. See Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2010 WL 8250792, at *3 n. 8, 2010 Del.Super. LEXIS 619, at *7–8 n. 8 (Del.Super.Ct. July 23, 2010) (stating standard for punitive damages is preponderance of the evidence); Simon v. Beebe Med. Ctr., 2004 WL 692647, 2004 Del.Super. LEXIS 76 (Del.Super.Ct. Mar. 15, 2004) (declining to apply higher clearing and convincing standard to issue of punitive damages); see also Delaware Pattern Jury Instructions § 22.27 (applying preponderance of the evidence standard).Although I do not find the Chancery Court opinion explicit on this point, I have assumed that the Chancery Court applied a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof rather than a “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
Marks v. Messick Gray Constr., Inc., 2000 WL 703657, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 18, 2000) (Ridgely, P.J.). See also Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 41.003 (2007) (Texas standard for determining punitive damages is clear and convincing evidence); cf. Simon v. Beebe Med. Ctr., Inc., 2004 WL 692647, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 15, 2004) (Del Pesco, J.) (Delaware standard for determining punitive damages is preponderance of the evidence).See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 718-24 (Tex. 1997).