 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Coffman6/17/1997
e Unfair Practices Act is a "remedy" that is part of what Plaintiff gave up when he elected to recover damages on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We disagree.
The two out-of-state cases cited by Defendants in the brief-in-chief are not persuasive as they are double-recovery cases in which plaintiffs were not permitted to obtain punitive damages plus statutory treble damages for the same acts. Roberts v. American Warranty Corp., 514 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986); Bill Terry's Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales, Inc., 409 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). Since attorney's fees were not an element of compensatory damages in this case and because they are not a surrogate for punitive damages, they are not covered by a prohibition against duplicate recovery of damages.
), is comparable to the situation presented by this appeal. In that case the plaintiff brought successful claims under common law breach of fiduciary duty and the Oklahoma securities act. Actual damages ($7,513,851) and punitives ($1) were awarded under the breach of fiduciary duty claim and attorney's fees ($512,197.15) were awarded under the state securities act. The appellate court held that the award of damages and attorney's fees was not duplicative, noting that the applicable statute stated that "' rights and remedies provided for in this title are in addition to other rights or remedies that may exist in law or in equity. . . .'" Id. at 1473 (citations omitted). Similarly, our own Section 57-12-10(D) provides, "The relief provided in this section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state."
We find MidAmerica to be persuasive authority on this issue, and we affirm the award of attorney's fees under Section 57-12-10(C). See also (affirming award of attorney's fees under the Unfair Trade Practices Act and remanding for a consideration of whether fraud was proved and, if so, what amount of punitive damages was appropriate); Linthicum v. Archambault, 379 Mass. 381, 398 N.E.2d 482 (Mass. 1979) (where plaintiff has valid breach-of-contract claim in addition to claim under consumer protection act, plaintiff can recover attorney's fees under the consumer protection act in addition to breach-of-contract damages).
Conclusion
We reverse the jury's award of $1 in nominal damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. We affirm the trial court's award of nominal damages and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty. We affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees, and we remand for an award to Plaintiff of such attorney's fees as the trial court finds reasonable for services on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BENNY E. FLORES, Judge
I CONCUR:
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
HARRIS L HARTZ, Chief Judge (Specially Concurring)
HARTZ, Chief Judge (specially Concurring).
I concur in the result and in all of the opinion of Judge Flores for the Court except the Discussion of piercing the corporate veil. It seems to me that application of piercing-the-corporate-veil doctrine to this case is unnecessary and creates a potential for confusion.
First, application of the doctrine is unnecessary because Dr. Coffman, as an officer of the corporation, is liable for his own fraudulent conduct under straightforward application of the law of agency. Section 348 of Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958) states:
An agent who fraudulently makes representations, uses duress, or knowingly assists in the commission of tortious fraud or duress by his principal or by others
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|