- 19 -
with the Leesburg Bank. Although petitioners suggest that
petitioner’s tortious interference claim might have supported
recovery for mental suffering, damage to reputation, or violation
of dignitary rights, there is no evidence in the record that
petitioner sought or received compensatory damages for any such
injuries.7
The jury returned a verdict awarding petitioner $43,050
compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of
$18,500,000, which the trial judge remitted to $2 million.
Although the record does not expressly indicate the basis on
which the jury determined compensatory damages, it seems most
likely that the award was based on the theory outlined in
petitioner’s trial brief, which explicitly equated his claim to
one for “wrongful detention or attachment of property” and which
advocated computing his loss by reference to the decrease from
$65,125.45 in the value of his USI stock when the Leesburg Bank
sold it to satisfy petitioner’s loans.
Based on all the evidence, then, we conclude that
petitioners have failed to prove that the compensatory damages on
the tortious interference claim were received on account of
personal injuries within the meaning of section 104(a)(2).
7 In fact, the record shows that petitioner sought
compensatory damages on his tortious interference claim
principally as a foothold for a much larger amount of punitive
damages. In his closing arguments in the third jury trial,
petitioner’s counsel requested only one dollar compensatory
damages, stating, “The one dollar on the interference claim will
justify your going into the punishment aspect of it and then you
can allow punitive damages that will get their attention”.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011