- 12 -
Petitioners’ alternative argument is without merit. Their
characterization of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Gregg v.
U.S. Indus., Inc., supra, is (viewed charitably) inaccurate.
After the jury awarded petitioner $8.1 million on his fraudulent
inducement cause of action, USI appealed the verdict to the Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the trial court
had erred in instructing the jury to measure damages on an “out-
of-pocket” rather than a “benefit of the bargain” basis. Id. at
1465. USI argued that, under a “benefit of the bargain”
approach, the maximum amount that petitioner could have recovered
for the fraud was $5.6 million--or $2.5 million less than the
$8.1 million that the jury actually awarded him. The Court of
Appeals rejected USI’s argument, however, and held that there was
no error in the jury’s use of the out-of-pocket measure of
damages. See id. at 1467.
In seeking to rely upon Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc., supra,
petitioners seem to have confused the rejected argument advanced
by USI with the holding of the Court of Appeals. In fact, the
Court of Appeals’ holding bolsters the view that the fraud
damages represented compensation for petitioner’s economic losses
rather than for any personal injury. The Court of Appeals
stated:
The jury assessed the evidence presented regarding the
value of Gregg’s companies prior to the closing with
USI and awarded Gregg an out-of-pocket amount of
damages representing that value less the value of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011