347 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2003)
The plaintiffs, a brother and sister, sued Accor Economy Lodging, Inc., which owns and operates the Motel 6 chain of hotels, in a diversity action governed by Illinois law after staying as guests at one of its hotels in downtown Chicago.1
In 1998, the extermination company EcoLab discovered bedbugs in several rooms at the motel and recommended spraying every room for a fee of only $500, but the motel refused the service.2 The next year, bedbugs were discovered in a room, and EcoLab was asked to spray only that room.3 By the spring of 2000, the motel's manager noticed refunds being given and reports from guests about ticks or bugs biting in the rooms, and upon checking some rooms she discovered bedbugs.4
The manager recommended to a district manager that the motel be closed while every room was sprayed, but the request was refused.5 The infestation continued, including an incident in which a guest complaining of bites was moved to successive rooms only to find insects in each new room.6 By July, the motel's management acknowledged to EcoLab a major problem with bedbugs and that the response consisted of chasing them from room to room.7 Desk clerks were instructed to call the bedbugs ticks when dealing with guests, and rooms on do-not-rent status due to bugs were nevertheless rented to guests.8
In November, the plaintiffs checked into the motel and were given Room 504, which had been classified as do not rent until treated and had not been treated.9 That night 190 of the hotel's 191 rooms were occupied, many of them on the same restricted status.10 The plaintiffs each received an award of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $186,000 in punitive damages from the jury.11
The defendant appealed, primarily challenging the punitive damages award.12 The plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of a count alleging violation of an Illinois consumer protection law, although they did not seek additional damages.13
Whether the evidence supported an award of punitive damages?14
Under Illinois law, punitive damages may be awarded when the defendant is guilty of willful and wanton conduct, which includes recklessness consisting of an unjustifiable failure to avoid a known risk.15
Yes. The established facts show that EcoLab discovered bedbugs in 1998 and recommended spraying every room for only $500, but the motel refused.16 The next year only one room was treated after discovery.17 The manager recommended closing the motel for fumigation but the district manager refused.18
Rooms on do-not-rent status were rented anyway, and the plaintiffs were placed in Room 504 despite its status.19 These facts establish the motel's knowledge of the risk and reckless failure to address it, supporting the award of punitive damages.20
The evidence supported an award of punitive damages.21
Whether the punitive damages award was excessive?22
Although due process presumptively limits punitive damages to single-digit ratios to compensatory damages, higher ratios are permissible when compensatory damages are small and difficult to quantify, the misconduct is hard to detect, and the defendant profited from the wrongdoing.23
No. The ratio of 37.2 to 1 exceeds the suggested four-to-one guideline, but the facts indicate that the $5,000 compensatory award to each plaintiff reflected slight and emotional harm that is difficult to quantify.24 The defendant profited by renting infested rooms rather than closing for treatment.25 The award accounts for the low probability of detection and the defendant's ability to mount an aggressive defense due to its $1.6 billion net worth.26 Therefore the award was not excessive.27
The punitive damages award was not excessive.28
Whether the district court's evidentiary rulings require reversal?29
The defendant's complaints about some of the judge’s evidentiary rulings are frivolous and require no discussion.30
No. The defendant's complaints concerned rulings such as the denial of the motion in limine to exclude evidence about other rooms.31 These complaints were frivolous. No showing was made that any ruling constituted an abuse of discretion or caused prejudice that would require reversal of the judgment.32
The district court's evidentiary rulings do not require reversal.33
Whether the dismissal of the consumer protection count requires reversal?34
The plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of a count alleging violation of an Illinois consumer protection law, although they did not seek additional damages, and so the cross-appeal need not be addressed provided the jury’s verdict is sustained.35
No. The plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of their Illinois consumer protection law count.36 They do not seek any additional damages.37 The jury's verdict on the other claims is sustained, so the cross-appeal requires no further consideration on the merits.38 Because the main verdict is affirmed, the court had no occasion to consider the merits of the consumer protection claim.39
The dismissal of the consumer protection count does not require reversal.40