- 14 -
We cannot accept an allocation based on a settlement
agreement which merely facilitated payment in the face of the
judgment debtor’s bankruptcy. The settlement agreement reduced
the monetary amount of the award, but it did not contain any
language that would establish an allocation contrary to the
jury verdicts or the judgments entered. We note that, in this
case, the jury verdict forms were drafted at the close of trial
and the language used in the verdict forms came from a pretrial
order that was used as a blueprint for the trial. The record
reflects that the jury delivered its verdict using language
that was identical to language in the pretrial order that was
drafted by Mr. Anderson’s attorney. Mr. Anderson was,
therefore, cognizant of and responsible for the formulation of
the claims as they were presented to the jury.
The vast majority of Mr. Anderson’s award for damages was
received for interference with his business relationships and
not for slander. The jury awarded Mr. Anderson $2.5 million
(later reduced to $210,000) for the injuries claimed in count
one for tortious interference with business relationships, but
it awarded only $1 for the injuries claimed in count two for
slander. For the foregoing reasons the award must be allocated
as it was clearly established at trial.
In sum, petitioners have failed to show that the
compensatory damages awarded on Mr. Anderson’s claim for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011