- 15 -
injuries consists of certain remarks that petitioner’s counsel
made in closing arguments in the third jury trial. Although
petitioners have neglected to favor us with citations to the
record source of these remarks (which petitioners have
paraphrased on brief), our independent perusals of the lengthy
record have brought to light the following remarks in closing
arguments in the USI litigation, which we infer are the remarks
upon which petitioners seek to rely:
USI interfered * * * with * * * [petitioner’s]
relationship [with the Leesburg Bank], because after it
learned that the dividends had been assigned to the
bank, it wouldn’t let the dividends go to the bank.
They just hid them, sat on them like a dog in a manger.
They couldn’t cash them, they just held them. Well, we
know that that caused problems with Gregg’s
relationship with the bank. Thereafter, when he tried
to make loans, he was turned down by the bank. We
can’t tell you what the damage amount is, but they
damaged him, they wronged him and the damages should be
one dollar nominal damages.
* * * * * * *
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.
From these remarks, it seems clear that the injury
complained of was to petitioner’s business relationship with the
Leesburg Bank and to his prospective economic advantage in being
able to borrow money there.
Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict awarding petitioner
$43,050 compensatory damages and $18.5 million punitive damages,
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