Treble Damages

What Are Treble Damages?

Treble damages are actual damages multiplied by three under the authority of a specific statute. The jury’s job does not change: it decides what the plaintiff lost. The statute then directs the judge to enter judgment for three times that figure. Because the multiplier comes from the legislature rather than the jury, it is applied mechanically; the judge has no discretion to award double or one-and-a-half times the verdict.

The remedy exists only where a statute creates it. North Carolina’s best-known treble damages provision is in its unfair and deceptive trade practices act, and that is the one that matters in injury and insurance matters. Other statutes carry their own multipliers for other kinds of wrongs, but a plaintiff cannot ask for treble damages in a plain negligence case.

When Does North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act Award Treble Damages?

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 declares unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 gives any person injured by a violation a right of action and provides that if damages are assessed, judgment shall be rendered for treble the amount fixed by the verdict. The word “shall” matters: once the jury finds a violation and an injury, trebling is automatic.

Two features of the act shape how it reaches injury claims. First, “commerce” includes all business activities but not professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession, so a medical malpractice claim cannot be restated as an unfair trade practice. Second, the act adds a fee-shifting provision. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1 the judge may award a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party when the violator willfully engaged in the practice and refused without warrant to resolve the matter, or, in the defendant’s favor, when the plaintiff knew or should have known the suit was frivolous and malicious.

• Elements: an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.
• Remedy: actual damages found by the jury, trebled by the court under § 75-16.
• Fees: discretionary attorney fees under § 75-16.1 for a willful violation and an unwarranted refusal to resolve the claim.
• Exclusion: professional services by a learned profession are outside the act.

How Do Treble Damages Apply To An Insurance Claim In North Carolina?

Through the unfair claim settlement practices statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) lists the claim-handling practices the Commissioner of Insurance treats as unfair when an insurer commits them often enough to indicate a general business practice: misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly on claim communications, refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation, failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time, not attempting in good faith to settle promptly and fairly once liability has become reasonably clear, compelling the insured to sue by offering substantially less than the amount later recovered, and failing to give a reasonable explanation for a denial or a low offer. The statute itself says a violation creates no private cause of action; the private remedy exists because North Carolina courts have treated conduct of the kind the statute describes as an unfair practice under § 75-1.1, which brings § 75-16 and its treble damages with it.

The remedy belongs to the insurer’s own policyholder. North Carolina does not recognize a bad-faith or unfair-practices claim by an injured third party against the at-fault driver’s insurance company; that insurer owes its duties to its insured, not to the person suing the insured. The claims that can carry treble damages are first-party claims: uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, medical payments coverage, and collision coverage under the injured person’s own policy.

What Is The Difference Between Treble Damages And Punitive Damages?

Both go beyond compensation, but they come from different places and follow different rules. Punitive damages are awarded by the jury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15 only when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct involved fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct. The jury sets the amount, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-25 caps it at the greater of three times the compensatory damages or $250,000, a limit the jury is never told about. Treble damages are not awarded by the jury at all; the court applies the multiplier because § 75-16 commands it, and no showing of malice is required beyond the unfair or deceptive practice itself.

A worked example shows the two side by side. Alan, a Greensboro driver, is seriously hurt by an uninsured motorist who was impaired. His claim against that driver can carry punitive damages for the impaired driving. His claim under his own uninsured motorist coverage is a contract claim against his insurer; if the insurer misrepresents his coverage, ignores his lawyer’s letters for months, and offers a fraction of the clear value while admitting the other driver was at fault, Alan may add a § 75-1.1 claim against the insurer, and a verdict on that claim is trebled under § 75-16. The underlying crash is the same; the remedies attach to different defendants for different wrongs.

How Does Contributory Negligence Affect A Treble Damages Claim?

Indirectly but powerfully. Contributory negligence is a defense to a negligence claim, and an unfair trade practices claim against an insurer is not a negligence claim, so the defense does not apply to it directly. But the insurer’s obligation under an uninsured or underinsured motorist policy depends on what the insured is legally entitled to recover from the at-fault driver. If the insured’s own negligence contributed to the crash, the insured is entitled to nothing from the other driver, and under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-139 the party asserting contributory negligence must prove it. An insurer that has a genuine contributory negligence argument has a reason to contest the claim, and a contested claim handled in good faith is not an unfair practice.

The practical lesson is that the strength of the underlying injury claim sets the stakes for everything else. A clear-liability crash with documented injuries leaves an insurer little room to delay or lowball, and when it does so anyway, the trebled remedy is what makes the misconduct expensive. Whether a particular pattern of claim handling rises to an unfair practice, and the deadline for bringing such a claim, are questions to confirm with an attorney early, while the claim file is still being built.