Does the Court have to review a denial of punitive damages de novo?

whether damages were excessive 'is entitled to great weight' because it is bound by the 'more demanding test of weighing conflicting evidence than our standard of review under the substantial evidence rule . . . .' [Citation.] All presumptions favor the trial court's determination [citation], and we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment [citation]." (Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, 259.) Ten, however, argues we should review the punitive damages award de novo because the court's findings compelled an award. Ten cited no case where an appellate court reviewed the denial of punitive damages de novo and we found none either. We therefore decline to adopt a new standard and review the damages award for substantial evidence.