>>I do not immediately see why insurance coverage for treble damages in a patent infringement is different from insurance coverage for any kind of punitive damage.
I am not saying it is different. I am saying that treble damage statutes serve the same purpose as punitive damages. They are not to compensate for loss but rather to punish.
"Typically, courts that have concluded that punitive damages ought not to be insurable (1) display a general objection to punitive damage awards as windfalls for the plaintiff, (2) believe that insuring punitive damages transfers the burden of the award from the wrongdoer to innocent premium-paying insureds, or (3) object that coverage undercuts the deterrent value of punitive damages. Other courts have approved insurance coverage for punitive damages, finding that (1) the presence of insurance coverage has no impact on the deterrent effect of punitive damages, (2) the expectation of the insured that the policy will cover all awarded damages must be honored, and (3) the acceptance of the premium estops the insurer from denying coverage that arguably exists in the insurance contract."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
