evidence the defendant’s conduct constituted a willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another and caused actual damage to the plaintiff.” Second, the instruction did not convey to the jury that it must award punitive damages, but rather informed the jury that such damages were simply within its discretion. Third, the instruction stated that “punitive damages are not intended to compensate for injury but are allowed to punish and discourage the defendant and others from like conduct in the future.” (Emphasis added.) Fourth, the instruction informed the jury that there is no exact formula for calculating the amount of punitive damages, but explained that the jury could consider “the amount of punitive damages which [would] punish and discourage like conduct 998) (<HOLDING>). 3. Admission of financial information. Shari
holding that as to the correction of an erroneous application of law a nondeferential standard of review applies holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo holding that claimed errors of law are subject to plenary review holding that we ordinarily review jury instruction challenges for correction of errors at law