claim may arise on remand, we briefly address Petta’s arguments on appeal. ¶ 47 Assuming an adequate evidentiary predicate, a jury ma plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in “reprehensible conduct combined with an evil mind over and above that required for commission of a tort.” Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 332, 723 P.2d 675, 681 (1986). “The key is the wrongdoer’s intent to injure the plaintiff or his deliberate interference with the rights of others, consciously disregarding the unjustifiably substantial risk of significant harm to them.” Id. at 331, 723 P.2d at 680 (citing Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 160, 726 P.2d 565, 576 (1986)); see also Volz v. Coleman Co., 155 Ariz. 567, 570, 748 P.2d 1191, 1194 (1987) (<HOLDING>). ¶49 We are mindful that “[a] grossly
holding a court may not award punitive damages recognizing that recklessness or even gross negligence is insufficient to support punitive damages holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages holding that punitive damages are excludable from gross income under 26 usc  104a2