Well, this is a wide open question, and needs to be answered with more questions, I'm afraid. Are you referring to an insurance company to "pay out" for property damages or for bodily injury? If for property damage, the insurance company will never pay more than ACV (actual cash value). If for bodily injury, if the at fault party was found to be under the influence of alcohol, then 'punitive' damages would certainly come under consideration. This would consitute additional dollars paid to the tortfeasor (the injured party)and to be considered 'punitive' or, required of the defendant as 'punishment' for his/her actions. However, insurance companies do not pay 'punitive damages'. The reason the insurance companies do not pay for 'punitive damages' is because by their very nature (and I'm sure you can tell by their name), they are intended to be punitive; they are intended to serve as 'punishment'. If our insurance company paid out dollars that are to be our 'punishment', then we are not 'punished'. Punitive damages are only awarded by juries, when a claim has escalated to a 'complaint' filed in civil court. They can also be awarded by a judge.
Punitive Damages
Most times punitive damages are paid by the defendant and not by the defendant's insurance company. This is because insurance policies protect against accidental losses, like car accidents. Punitive damages are allowed only for intentional torts, which are not included in insurance coverage. If your neighbor falls down your stairs and gets hurt because you were negligent in some way, the insurance company pays for it. If you push him down the stairs, it will not cover the punitive damages you might get hit with.
You theoretically can but you probably won't. Punitive damages are rare and require an extreme situation.
Punitive damages is also a type of Monetary remedy which is designed to punish the defendant for behavior that shocks the conscience of the finder of fact. Punitive damages are meant to serve as a deterrent. Unlike most compensatory damages for civil suits, the purpose of punitive damages is not to make the plaintiff whole, but to punish the defendant. Punitive damages are not awarded in every civil case and most states have strict rules and limitations on when punitive damages will be allowed.
punitive damages are costs awarded to a party to punish the offending party, usually meant to discourage certain behaviour. Consequential damages are damages that attempt to rectify a cost of an innocent party when a breach has occurred in contract.
The best source of information would be your insurance agent. Not all policies are the same. But generally you can have coverage for punitive damages if you select the option when you purchased your policy. The cheaper the policy, typically the less the coverage.
They would have to file a claim with the insurance company for any damages or injury. However, they cannot ask for money to reimburse them for punitive damages--that would be a civil case.
The court will set punitive damages for the defendant when it considers that the culprit would learn something from paying more. Maybe compensation awarded to the victim was not entirely adequate, or maybe the perpetrator would benefit from a life lesson.
Exemplary damages are awarded to punish the defendant for their wrongful conduct and deter others from similar behavior, while punitive damages are meant to compensate the plaintiff for their losses and make them whole again.
'Punitive damages' are awarded in civil trials, and usually the amount is decided by the jury hearing the case. In cases where a jury trial was waived, the amount is decided by the judge after considering arguments from both sides.
No, provided the malpractice involved is negligent rather than intentional. Punitive damages are assessed in order to punish and deter intentional tortious conduct. If the malpractice is negligent in the sense of accidental, there is no just reason to assess punitive damages because the person committing the malpractice did not intend to cause the injury.