ShareThisOhio and Indiana Courts Address Attorney Fee Issues
In an opinion handed down on July 11, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a jury award for attorney fees was reversible error.
In Zappitelli, et al. v Miller, et al., Case No. 85895, 2006-Ohio-279, a jury awarded the plaintiff total damages of $134,500 for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence. During deliberations, the jury asked the court: "If we answer 'no' to punitive damages, can we add money to compensatory damages to cover the attorney fees?" The trial court advised the jury it could not.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, relying on a prior (1859) Ohio Supreme Court decision, Roberts v Mason, 10 Ohio St. 278. In its July 11 opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals decision was in error. The Roberts case concluded that in an action to recover damages for a tort involving fraud, malice or insult, a jury could go beyond mere compensation and also award punitive damages; and in such cases, the jury could take into consideration, as to compensatory damages, reasonable fees of counsel employed by plaintiff to pursue the action.
In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the appeals court had misconstrued the second holding in Roberts and that its meaning was clearly that only in cases where punitive damages were awarded would an award of attorney fees also be appropriate.
In a different legal scenario, the Court of Appeals of Indiana rendered a decision on June 11 that allowed an apparent award of attorney fees to stand.
In Booroom v Howard, No. 79A05-0609-CV-524, the parties were involved in an automobile accident. Gregory Booroom admitted liability, and, at trial, the jury's only task was to determine the amount of damages.
On the last day of the trial, the jury returned two verdict forms. Following its deliberations, the jury returned its first form that awarded the plaintiff $16,000 in damages, "plus legal fees." After conferring with counsel in a sidebar, the judge instructed the jury that adding legal fees to the verdict was not permissible, and the jury was sent back for further deliberations.
The jury then gave the judge a second verdict form that awarded the plaintiff $32,000. The defendant appealed, claiming that the jury improperly considered attorney fees when it increased its award from $16,000 to $32,000.
In upholding the jury verdict, the court pointed out that at trial there was no instruction directing the jury to reimburse plaintiff for legal expenses. Similarly, no evidence was offered during trial as to expenses incurred in bringing the action against Booroom. Further, the court acknowledged the presumption that the jury followed the law. Finally, the court noted that the record of trial reflected medical expenses and lost wages in excess of $12,000. The court also observed that the jury was allowed to compensate the plaintiff for her pain and suffering. Considering all of those factors, the court of appeals refused "to attempt to interpret the thought process of the jury in arriving at its verdict."
Direct questions to NAMIC's Regulatory Affairs Manager Marsha Harrison.
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:00:00 AM. Modified: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:52:16 PM.
(317) 875-5250 - Indianapolis | (202) 628-1558 - Washington, D.C.
Contact NAMIC | Press | Advertise | Sponsor
= access available only to registered users from NAMIC-member companies