- 16 -
which the trial judge remitted to $2 million. On supplemental
brief, petitioners argue: “The lack of any direct correlation
between the amount of damages and any identifiable economic
injury confirms that the jury intended to compensate Mr. Gregg
for his intangible personal injury.” As we discussed in our
original opinion, however, petitioner’s trial brief in the USI
litigation equated petitioner’s tortious interference claim to
one for “wrongful detention or attachment of property” and
advocated computing damages by reference to petitioner’s economic
loss occasioned when the Leesburg Bank sold the USI stock at a
depressed value to satisfy petitioner’s outstanding loans. The
opinion of the Court of Appeals in the USI litigation, in
affirming the $43,050 jury award for tortious interference,
confirms this direct correlation between the amount of damages
awarded by the jury and petitioner’s economic injury:
Gregg also presented evidence “that reasonable and
fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment
might reach different conclusions” concerning the
damages he suffered as a result of USI’s interference
with his business relationship with the Leesburg bank.
Gregg introduced evidence that because USI refused to
pay his dividends to the Leesburg Bank, the bank was
required to sell Gregg’s stock, which was declining in
value, to satisfy his loans. Gregg also testified at
trial that he was unable to obtain loans from the
Leesburg Bank following USI’s actions in refusing to
disburse the declared dividends. This testimony was
not objected to nor contradicted by USI.
The jury, in considering all the evidence
presented over several days of trial and all the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence,
including Gregg’s uncontroverted testimony, could find
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