FOURTH DIVISION March 24, 2011 No. 1-09- 3603
IN THE APPELL ATE COU

RT OF IL

LINOIS FIRST JUDICI AL DISTRICT
KATHLEEN LAWLOR, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plaint iff -Ap pellee a nd ) Co o k C o un t y. Cross -A pp el l an t, ) v. ) No. 05 CH 13876 ) NORTH AMERICA

N CORPORA

TION ) OF ILLINOIS, ) ) T he Ho no r ab le Defend ant -Ap pellant and ) Ca r o l P ea r ce Mc Ca r t hy, Cross-Appel

le e. ) Judge Presidin g.
JUS TI CE LAVI N de livered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Ga llagher and J ust ice Pu cinski co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Here, we are confronted wi th dueli ng appeals f

rom the trial

of an em ploy me nt dis pute that par ado xically

co nclude d wit h bot h par t ies pr evailing in their re spe ct ive claims and ea ch r ece iving punit ive damag es. The litigat ion it self aro se o ut of a n employment nonc omp et itio n invest igat ion. Af ter plai ntif f l eft her sa le s position from

a l arge corpo rate empl

oyer, she f

igured out that she was unde r su rve ill

ance by investiga t or s, w hom she sus pec t ed o f ste aling her mail and who m she ultim ately l earned used nefarious means (“pretexting”) to obtain her priv ate pho ne record s. These pho ne r eco rd s we re t hen us ed by her ex- employer t o inves t igat e her act ivities in the waning1-09-3603

2

months of her seven

years of em

ploym ent. T he em

ployee, Kathl

een Lawlor, fi

led sui t against No rt h American C or po ra t ion o f Illinois (No rt h American) , a fte r lear ning o f the invest igat ion. She clai med an “i ntrus i on upon

sec l usi on” tort and requested

com pen satory and pun i tiv e dam ages . Nor th A meri ca n ’s cou n tercl ai m al l eg ed sh e v i ol ate d h er f i du ci ar y du ty of l oy al ty b y atte m pti n g to ste er b us i n es s to a prospe cti

v e em pl oy er an d th at sh e a l so c om m un i ca ted con f i den ti al cor porate sa les info r mat io n t o t he sa me c o mp an y. At trial , both parties prevai le d in their respe ctive

cl ai ms . A j ury awa

rded Lawlor $1.75 mi ll ion in punitive and $65,0 00 in compensato ry damages. The t rial court heard t he employer’s equi ty c l ai m contem poraneousl

y and, one month a f ter the tri al , i t rul ed i n N orth A

merican ’sf

av or, awar di ng $ 78,781 i

n c omp en satory

and $551 ,467 i

n pu ni tiv e dam ages . Nort h A me rican ’s pri ma ry contention is

that Lawlor fa

il ed to pr ove that Nort h A

me rican
wa s l i ab l e on an ag en cy the ory f or th e acti

ons of an i nd ep en de nt c ontr

ac tor th at s omeh

ow acqui red her pri

vate phone records. Lawl or, meanwh

il e, appeal s f

rom the reduction of

her pu nit ive da mag e a wa r d a nd als o ap pe als fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t ’s jud gme nt o n t he co un t er cla im, which r aised t he du t y of loyalt y issue. She a rg ues t hat , a s an a t -w ill employee wit hou t any co nt ra ct ual du t y to re frain fro m disclos ing simple sales vo lume and c ommissions info rmat ion, t he tri al cou rt’ s f i nd i ng s w ere ag ai ns t the man i f es t we i gh t of the ev i de nc e a nd am oun t to an ab us e of the tr ial cour t’s discretion. For the reaso ns that follow, we aff irm the jury’ s verdicts again

st No rt h American in La wlor ’s favo r a nd r einst at e t he full punit ive damag e ver dict re t ur ned by t he jury. Wi th regard to Nort h A

me rican ’s b reach of l oyal ty countercla

im , we hold that the trial
cour t’s judgmen

ts for co mpensato ry dam

ages and puni

tive dam ages were against the mani fest1-09-3603

3

weight of the evidence and we therefore reverse t hose judgm ents. BACK GROUND The parties e

ngaged i n f our years of b

ruisi ng di scovery , but the testimony at the six-day trial was relative ly

uncom pli cated. Lawlor was aggrieved that North Ame rican , through surreptitious m

eans, acqui

red her m obil e and h ome ph one records in

a fai le d eff ort to prove that sh e b rea ch ed the com pa ny ’s non com pe ti ti on a gre em en t. Pai nte d w i th a br oad br us h, La wl or presented evi

dence at trial

to the eff ect that No rth Am

erica n, through counsel

and at l east two i n de pen den t i n v esti ga tors , s et a b out th e ta sk s of pers on al su rv ei l l an ce an d g etti n g h er pri v ate phon e rec ords. Lawlor t estif

ie d that she deci

ded to quit her job as

a salesperson af

ter her empl

oyer su dd en ly at t emp t ed t o ch an ge he rco mp en sa t io n a gr ee men t . S ho r t ly af t er sh e le ft it s e mp lo y, North A meri ca n b eg an an i nv es ti ga ti on to d ete rm i ne i f sh e h ad vi ol ate d thei

r nonc om pe ti ti on agreem ent. The evi

dence at trial

reveal ed the fol lowi ng sequen

ce: (1) Nort h A

me rican assi gned an off ic er, Patr ic

k Dolan , to serve as

corpo rate liai son on the i nve stigati on; (2) Nort h A me rican asked i ts lawy er, Lewi s Greenb la

tt , to conduct the in

vestigation; (3) the l

awy er then hi red an in vestigator , Probe, which

had worked in

so-call ed “n oncompeti

tion” cases

bef ore; (4) Dolan gave the l awy er and the i

nve stigator personal i

nf ormation f

rom the plai

ntif f’ s personnel

fi le , including her birt h dat e, so cial secu rit y number, add re ss and t elepho ne number s; (5 ) t he inve st iga t o rpa ss ed t his in fo r mat io n o n t o yet an o t he rinve st iga t o r , Dis co ve r , wh ich , pr es uma bly through “pretextin

g,” obtained the ph

one records; and (6) the phone rec ords were then passed up the line b ack t o No rt h Am erican, which used t he in

formation inter nall

y to investigat e Lawlor’s1-09-3603

1 De f en da n t ackn owl ed ge d, i n a docu men t en ti tl ed “ Nor th A meri ca n ’s Oppos i ti on to Lawlor’s Supplem

ent to her Mot ion to E nf

orce P robe’s Subpoena and Mot ion to Quash Su b poe n as f or Te l ep h on e R

ec ord s, ” th

at b oth Pro b e a n d D i sc ov er

we re“ ag en ts o f Nor th Amer ica n’s at t o rne y t ha t ha d b ee n r et ain ed t o inve st iga t e L aw lo r ’s emp lo yment ac t ivit ies wh ile
em ploy ed by Nort h A me rican .” Thi s m

ot ion was supported by an aff ida vi t by Green

bl att t hat indicat ed t hat “Pr obe per for med invest igat or y service s, a s my agent and a t my direct ion,
conc ern i ng th e ci rcum stan ces of L awl or’s e m ploym en t at North A

merican .” 4 activ ities by cross-checki

ng al l of the num bers f ound on the records. This i nve stigati on started sho r t ly aft er La wlo rleft No r t h Ame r ica n a nd las t ed ap pr o ximat ely five mo nt hs, by w hic h t ime Lawlor had been working at a competitor for three months. No rt h American vigo ro usly defend ed it self on a ll l evels, at t empt ing t o p ro ve t hat t he inves t iga t io n wa s c o ndu ct ed in an e nt ire ly pr o pe r fa shio n wh ile en de avo ring t o se pa ra t e it se lf, unde r t he ae gis o f the t hor ny pro visions o f agenc y law, fro m the s hado wy act ivities o f the i nv es ti ga tors. It sou

gh t a di rected ve rdi ct a t the cl ose of La wl or’ s c as e, a

rgu i ng tha t i t cou l d n ot be held liable o n an ag ency basis fo r t he impro per co nduc t of e ither of t he invest igat ion firms, o ne of w hi ch had be en di rectl y hi red b y North A merican ’sl awy

er. 1 Wi th regar d to its l awsuit against Law lor , N or t h American s ou ght t o p ro ve t hat she ha d impro per ly communicat ed c omp any in form ation to a pro spectiv

e em ploy er whi le stil l i n i ts empl oy an d al so argued that she attempted to ste er b us i ne ss to the pros pe cti ve em pl oyer, de sp i

te the f ac t tha t i t did n ot al l eg e a vi ol ati on of1-09-3603

2 The noncom

petition agreem

ent ma y h ave prompted the i

nve stigati on, but it was ne ver adm itted at t rial . Durin

g the course of di scovery , the parties en gaged i n ex tensi ve m ot ion practice befo re seve ra l circu it co ur t judg es r ega rd ing t he ag re ement . T his culminate d wit h a mot ion in limine be f ore th e tri al j udg e w he re th e d ef en se attorn ey tol d the c ourt th

at d ef en da nt wasnot
ar guing t hat t he ag re ement was “enfor cea ble.” This co ur t had fo und a nonc omp et itio n agr eement involving t he sa me defend ant unenfo rc eable in North American Paper Co. v. Unterberger , 17 2 I ll. Ap p. 3d 41 0 (198 8). 5 t he no nco mpet itio n agr eement , w hich was t he ge nesis o f the invest igat ion. 2 The evi dence at trial will be desc ribed below in a witne ss- by-wit ness r ecit at ion. Testimony of Kathleen Lawlor Lawlor, an at-will

em ploy ee, worked at No rth Am

erica n as a com

mi ssion-based salesperson sel

li ng pri nted promotional

item s f rom 1998 to 2005. Lawlor was giv en wi de l atitude in det er mini

ng t he pr ices she char ged her clients for No rt h American’ s pr od uct s. O nce s he acq uire d a t hird p ar t y’s business in the manne r o f a “ra inmaker ,” t he ac co unt was manage d and handled by ot her No rt h American e mployees . D ur ing her first t hre e year s at No rt h American, Lawlor received a

salary, b ut begin ni ng i n 2001, she

signed an agreem ent wi th Nort h A

me rican th at p rov i de d sh e w oul

d r ec ei v e c om m i ss i on s of 30 % of th e g ros s prof i ts s h e g en erate d f or N orth Am erica n, wi th a draw of $70,000. Some of the accounts Law lor generated i

ncl uded Kom

atsu, FT D, Plia nt , a nd M ap Qu es t , w hich s he s t at ed she did no t re ce ive c o mmissio ns fo r a ft er she left North A meri ca n. Th e evi

de nc e a t tri al rev eal ed tha t La wl or wa s v ery succ es sf ul i n h er r ol e f or1-09-3603

6

her employer and t hat she g ener at ed inco me in excess of $ 200 ,0 00 o n an annu al basis, t ied t o t he pr ofit s she mad e fo r t he co rp or at ion. The co ntro versy that led to the du eli ng lawsuits seemed to have its genesis i n Lawlor’s attempt t o acquire the b

usi ness of MapQuest i

n March 2004, when s

he i ni tial ly recei ved an order f or ro l l -u p m ap s, an d w as pai d 3 0% of

Nor th A meri ca n ’s gr oss pr of i ts. La wl or w as Nor th Am erica n’s prim ary contact person on the account and worked closely with K evi n Bri stow, an outsi de consul

tant h i red b y Map Ques

t to negoti ate i

ts pri nt b usi ne ss. In N ovem ber 2004 , Lawl or in

tervi ewed f or a sal es p osi tion at Sha m rock Com pan i es, In c., one of North Am

erica n’s competi to rs. Lawl or fl ew to Clevel and an d in terviewe d with Greg Christ enso n, a for mer N or t h American e mployee a nd co wo rk er of La wlor ’s. As pa rt of t he i nterv i ew, she toured the

Sha m rock f aci l i tie s an d m et wi th som e of the departm

en t hea ds. In De ce m be r 20 04, La

wl or s en t Ch ri stens on a

f ol l ow-u p lette r, a t hi s r eq ue st, d i scus si ng seve ral of th e acc oun

ts s h e w ork ed

on f or N orth A meri ca n , re v ea l i n g i n f orm ati on re l ate d to N orth Am erica n’s gross profit m

argin s on those accounts. In her letter to Chri stenson, Lawl or stat ed: “Per our discus si ons, I wil l h igh li ght where I currentl

y a m a s f ar as tot al volum e: By year-e nd, I wil l ha ve bi l l ed $2 ,000,00 0 i

n s ales wi th a [g ross pr ofi t] of 34 %. In addi tion, Kom

atsu, whic h i s sha red with J enn if er Hall , wil l bil l a n addi tional [$]1,600,000 with a [gross pro fi

t] o f 44%. The $2,000,000 i s m ade up of m

any accounts to in

cl ude FTD, Mobi

l Trav el Gui de, M apQuest, Vista Ma

na gem en t and Pli an t as the maj ors.” La wl or d en i ed atte m pti n g to stee r a n y cu sto mer s to Sham

roc k w h i l e sh e w as

em pl oy ed at N orth American.1-09-3603

7

In De cem b er 20 04 , L awl or re ce i

v ed an e- mai l f rom Br i sto w r eg ardi

n g a n opp ortu n i ty to gene ra t e new business fro m MapQ ues t . La wlor met w ith Br isto w var iou s t imes in Januar y and Fe br ua ry 20 05
. T he Ma pQ ue st bu sine ss , by all a cc o un t s, wa s p r o jec t ed t o be ve ry luc r at ive if every thin g fel l i nto place. Plai

ntif f testif ie d that when the “

pitch” was getting readi

ed, she sen

sed that sh e was be i ng p ush ed as i de. In

Marc h 20 05, Mi

ke Pe rez, L awl or’s d i rect su perv i sor, informed her t hat t he Ma pQu est pit ch nee ded t o be a “sexy pr ese nt at ion” a nd wo uld be led by
ano t her employee , Klay D’io rio . Whe n Law lor pr ot est ed, Per ez t old her t hat she w as no t t o ha ve any contact with Bri stow until the deal cl osed. During the m

eetin g, according to Lawl or, Per ez made s ever al st at ement s t hat app ear ed d esigne d t o d ista nce La wlor fro m the a cco unt , indica t ing t hat a differe nt “per so nality” co uld be s ubst itu t ed if Law lor wer e no t t he r ight per so n. Fo llowing the me eting, Perez e-m

ai le d Lawlor t o t el l h

er she di d a great job, but he di

d not know what her
ro le wo uld be w ith Ma pQu est moving fo rw ar d. In Ma y 2005 , P er ez no t ifi ed L awlo r t hat he in tended to have the MapQuest account handl ed by a salaried e

mpl oyee at North Am

erica n. On Jun e 13, 2 005, M apQuest pl

ace d an order wi th North A

merican f or approxi

matel y $338,0 00. Ju st tw o da

y s l ate r, L aw l or s ep ara

ted f rom North A meri ca n. She n ever rec ei ve d c om pe ns ati on f rom th e Ma pQue st j ob tha

t had closed j ust b ef

ore sh e lef t. In th e b eg i n n i n g of Ju n e 2 00 5, North

A meri ca n told L aw l or i

t wa s ch an

gi n g i ts com pens ati on a gre em en t so th at s he wou l d n o l ong er rec ei

ve 30%com

m i ss i ons , but L aw l or re f us ed to s i gn i t an d l ef t th e c om pa n y . Sh e te sti f i ed th at sh e w as

di sg ru n tl ed b ec au se Nor th A meri ca n wa s a ttem pti n g to ch an

ge h er meth od of com pen sa ti on f rom th e a gr ee d 3 0% of

pr of i ts
method, j ust wh

en she h ad b rough t in a b i g piece

of b usi ne ss.1-09-3603

8

Lawlor t estif

ie d that she i

ntended to spend the sum me r with h er three young ch

il dren (age 10 an d un der) b ef ore taki ng a nothe r j ob. Ju st wee

ks l ater, she s uspected that Nor th Am

erica n was i nve stigati ng he r after spott in

g what appeared to be in

vestigator s l

urkin g around out si de her hou se a nd her par ent s’ ho use . La wlor was also alarmed when s he did no t re ceive he r Ju ne tel eph one b i l l
. The surv eil l ance a ppea red to conti

nue f or some ti me. In October 2005, Lawlor learned that Nor th Am

erica n ha d obtaine d her m

obil e and h ome ph one records from A

pril 2005 through Se ptem b er 20 05 . L awl or te sti

f i ed th at sh e n

ev er au th ori ze d a n y b ody at N orth A meri ca n to acq uire or loo k at her pho ne r eco rd s. S he t est ifi ed t hat she felt violat ed a nd physica lly ill at t he revel ation that her pri

vate i nf ormation h

ad becom e fodder at her f

ormer em ploy er. She avoi ded usin g her perso nal

phone li nes and enh

anced the security f

eatur es on her phones. She also ch an ge d t he lo ck s o n he rho me a nd inst alle d a se cu r it y sys t em. Lawlor t estif

ie d that she i

ncurred $620,000 i

n legal fees (half of whi ch sh e has al ready pa id) t o t wo law firms t ha t ha nd led t he firs t wa ve o f leg al a ct io n a ga inst No r t h Ame r ica n fo rt he ir invasion o f her p rivacy, but t hat t he lawyer s re pr ese nt ing her at t rial wer e do ing so on a co nt ingency basis. Law lor t est ifi ed t hat dur ing her t wo mont hs o ff wor k, she ne ver co nt act ed a ny clients fro m Nor t h American. She ne ver t old any clients t hat she w as g oing t o S hamro ck. She test if ied that she never compromi sed her former em ployer i n any conversations or busi

ness dealin gs wi th any body a ff il ia ted with Sham

rock. In August 2005, Lawlor started wo rkin g at Sham rock , h av i ng con cl ude d a l ong run at N orth A meri ca n w he re s he ge ne rate d m an y m i l l i ons of dollars i n com pany profi ts. Not a si

ngle clie nt followed.1-09-3603

9 Testimony of Kevin Bristow In Decemb er 2004, Bristow, a consultant for MapQuest , cont acted Lawlor t o discuss a new b usi ness oppor tunity

for North Ame

rican . Bristow contacted Lawlor because he h ad known her f or a long tim

e and sh e had al way s been

trust wort hy

and rel ia ble. Through February

2005, Law lor helped Brist ow for mulat e a bu siness p lan to pit ch t o e xecu t ives at Map Que st re gar ding t he fea sibilit y o f cr ea t ing a p ub lishin g d ivisio n. Br ist o w r eq ue st ed t ha t La wlo rke ep t he ir dis cussi ons to herself

to avoi d “the addi

tional pressure of ev

eryb ody com

in g and gettin

g in volv ed in this project from Nort h A

me rican at that t im

e.” Bris to w testif ie d that Lawlor di d not pro vi de hi m wi th an y i nf orma tion regar di ng c omp an

i es othe r than North A merican . On Fe b ru ar y 23 , 20 05 , B ri sto w a

n d L aw l or s en

t an e- mai l to Todd V an

Pa ri s a t Nor th A meri ca n r ec om men di ng tha t Ma pQ ue st a nd North A meri ca n b eg i n f i na l ne gotiati ons . Br i stow and L awlo r a gr eed t hat it w as t he r ight t ime to include s enior exec ut ives fro m bot h Map Que st and No r t h Ame r ica n in t he ne go t iat io ns b ec au se t he bu sine ss o pp o r t un it y wa s g r o win g. Va n P ar is responded to Bristow, who t hen forwarded the response to Lawl or “to keep [her] i n the l oop. ” De sp i te s ug ge sti on s to th e c on

tra ry, B ri sto w te sti

f i ed th at h e n ev er aske d N orth

A meri ca n to dim in is h Lawl or’s role wi

th respect to the MapQuest busi ness . Bristow testifi

ed that he contacted Van Pari s becaus e Lawl

or’s “boi le rplate proposal” was n

ot satisf actory for MapQuest, whi ch was lookin g for a m ore detaile d propo sal . Bristow did n ot ic e that Lawlor’s rol e was be in g dim in is hed, b ut e x pl ai n ed th at “on such a l arge sc al e op por tun i ty , ther e’ s a

l ot of com pl i ca ted as pe cts to i t, and one person is not skil le d enough to do all

those facets of the b

usi ness .” Lawlor never recom mended, a

nd B ri stow ne

ver cons i dered , i

nv olv i ng S ha m rock wi th the Map Quest bus i

ne ss.1-09-3603

10

Map Que st place d so me or der s wit h No rt h American, but t hey did no t clos e t he de al tha t was t he sub j ect of thei r ne gotia tions. Br i sto w te sti

f i ed at s om e l en gth ab out a n af f i da v i t h e s i gn ed th at was pr ep ar ed b y Nor th American. On t hat day, dist re ssed and p re oc cup ied wit h co ncer n for his elder ly, il l aunt , w hom he
wa s flying t o visit lat er t ha t da y in E ng lan d, he sp o ke wit h P er ez , wh o t hr ea t en ed t o pr ev en t him fro m leaving the co unt ry if he did no t sign an a ffi davit abo ut t he Ma pQu est dea l. Br isto w sa id he
was assu re d t hat “it wa s no t a big de al” and if he signed t he affidavit and w as a ssu age d, t he dis pute with Lawl

or “would go away .” The need f or t he si gni ng was s o urgent t hat Perez ma de pla ns to meet Bri stow o n hi

s way to the ai rport to fl y ove rseas. They

me t at t he O’Ha

re Toll way Oa sis
. Br ist o w s ign ed t he affid av it o n t he ho o d o f a c ar an d s aid he did so o nly be ca us e h e fe lt threa tene d by North A merican . The court and jury

heard the speci

fi cs f rom the af

fi davi t, incl udin g that: (1) o n sev

eral
occ as i ons be twe en De cem be r 20 04 a nd Fe br ua ry 200 5, L aw l or as

ke d h i m to de l ay the proc es s of awardin g the MapQuest busi

ness to Nort h A

me rican giv en the possi

bi li ty that she m

igh t change j ob s to Sham

roc k s o th at h

e c oul d a wa rd Ma pQ ue st’ s b

us i n es s to Sham

roc k r ath er th an Nor th American; ( 2) Law lor offer ed t o int ro duc e Br isto w t o s omeo ne at Shamr oc k who wo uld be t he “po int p er so n” unt il she bega n wo rk ing at Shamr oc k; ( 3) Law lor sho wed him pictu re s o f the Sham rock faci li ty; (4) MapQues

t would be b etter served b y Sh am rock o n the serv

ic e side; an

d (5) he adv is ed Lawl or t hat it was un

ethic al to be pursui

ng bus in ess f or o ne com

pany whi le em ploy ed at another. Bri stow tes ti f i ed tha t thos e s tate men

ts i n th e N orth A meri ca n d raf ted af f i da vi t we re n ot1-09-3603

11

true. Testimo ny of Todd VanParis Van Pari s j oine d Nort h A me rican as a vi ce president and gen

eral m anager i n Septemb er 20 01 . V an

Pa ri s d i d n ot kn ow a b out L aw l or’ s a ss oci

ati on wi th Sham roc k u n ti l h e m et wi th Bris to w after Lawl

or had lef t Nor th Am

erica n. Van Paris was aware that North Am erica n ha d conducted an i

nve stigati on of Lawl

or after she left the compa ny . Van Pari s di d not know whether Nort h A me rican was i nve stigati ng Lawl or’s phone num

bers wi thout her knowledge, but ack now ledge d r ece iving faxes o f pho ne number s fro m Pro be, an invest igat ive firm, t hat he
assum ed were Lawl

or’s. Van Pari s di d not receive Lawlor’s permission to look at her phone l ogs an d di d n ot tal k to a ny one at Pr obe ab out L aw l or’ s i

nv es ti ga ti on. Hecl

ai med to be unaw are of anyone at No rt h American, or anyone on it s beha lf, imperso nat ing Law lor t o g et her pho ne records . Pri or to the l awsui t, Van Pari s wa s n

ot aware of

how L awl

or’s phone rec ords we

re obtaine d. Van Pari s l ooked at the num bers to see if

any of them looked fam

il ia r to hi m. Van Par i s a l so r es ea rch ed the phone nu m be rs on th e i nte rnet b ec au se

he wa s c onc ern

ed tha t La wl or had been tal

kin g to competito rs. Testimony of Patrick Dolan Do lan was t he vice p re sident of o per at ions a t No rt h American in 20 05. Do lan was t he North A meri ca n l i ai son wi th i ts a ttorn ey , Le wi s G ree nbl att, f or th e i nte rnal i nv es ti ga ti on of Lawlor and test if

ied as an adverse witness durin

g Lawlor’s case-in

-chief . Do lan also
corres ponde d wi

th a M r. Di Lui gi f rom Probe d

i rectl y , wh o fa xe d hi m Lawl or’s phone logs. Dolan provided i

nf ormation about Lawlor to Greenblatt and DiL uigi , incl uding h er name, address,1-09-3603

12

so cial secu rit y number, birt hday, and he r ho me and mo bile phone number s. D olan c laimed tha t he di d n ot know w

ha t Di Lu i gi wa s g oi ng to do wi th th i s i nf orm ati on, bu t con ce de d that he w asnot sur pr ised w hen he r ece ived La wlor ’s pho ne log s. D olan s t at ed t hat DiLuigi t old him that he ty pi cal l y obta i ne d the p hon

e l ogsof othe r pe rs ons su bj ec t to si m i l ar i nv es ti ga ti ons asLa wl or where there was a c oncern ab out competi tion. Dolan

researched the ph

one num bers on the l

ogs t hro ugh int er net sea rc hes a nd co nsult ing wit h ot her s, s uch a s Va n Par is, who might ha ve recogn ized th e n um bers. Dolan signed off on a $15, 000 pa ym ent t o Lew is Greenblatt’s law firm for Pr obe’s i nv esti gati on of Lawl or. North A

merican sub m i tted a se cond

pay men t to Greenbl att’s l

aw f i rm f or th e i nv es ti ga ti on i n th e a moun t of $22 ,99 4.8 8. W

he n q ue sti one d w hy he di d n ot as k how Probe obtai ne d La wlor’s phone rec ords, Dol an testi f i ed th at he

“re l i ed on

Mr. Gre en

bl att and Mr. DiL uigi in performi ng the procedures i

n the i nve stigation.” On exam in ation by Nort h A me rican ’s l awy er, Dolan testif

ie d that he nev

er in structed Gr ee nbla t t ho w t o co nd uc t t he inve st iga t io n a nd t ha t No r t h Ame r ica n ne ve rpa id P r o be dir ec t ly f or any of the i nv esti gati ve work. On rec ros s- exam

i na ti on, Dol an tes ti f i ed tha t de sp i te re ce i vi ng at l ea st f i ve f axesf rom DiL uigi with telephone n

umb ers, he ne

ver asked h

ow or why

the records were obtained an d never inst ruc t ed DiL uig i t o st o p s en din g t he m. Testimony of Albert DiLuigi Al bert DiL uigi was the presi

dent and sole em

ploy ee of Probe Internati onal , a local detecti ve agen cy . He s tarted this ag ency af ter serv i ng r oughl y three years as a pol i cem an .1-09-3603

13

Di Lui gi testi f i ed th at his com

pan y washi red b y an attorney repre sen tin g North A

merican . DiLuigi und er st oo d t hat he wa s hired t o c ond uct an invest igat ion t o lea rn if Lawlo r w as t aking any b usiness f ro m Nort h Am

erican. He t estified that D olan directe d him to obt ain Lawl

or ’s teleph one records. It was not Probe’s fi rst noncompeti

tion i nve stigati on, and i

n the other i nv esti gati ons, Probe h

ad ob tai ne d phone re cords. Wh en Probe sought to o btain phone records, it would s ubm it a request on a preprin

ted fo r m t o a t hir d- pa r t y co mpa ny k no wn as Dis co ve r . DiL iug i cla imed t o ha ve ve ry lit t le i nf orm ati on a bou t Di sc ove r. H e te sti

f i ed tha t he thou gh t i t wa s b as ed

i n F l orida , but di

d n ot kn ow a n a ddr es s or even the ci ty . He onl y ha d one c onta

ct, a wom an na med Je ss i ca , but di

d n ot kno w her last name. He d id, ho weve r, kno w t hat it w as q uit e pr oficient in obt aining t elepho ne records in s ituations

li ke this . Once Di

Luigi rece iv

ed the phone records f

rom Di scover, he f

axed them to Dola n a t North A merican . Dol an

ask ed Di Lui gi to foll ow up on

who the n

um bers bel onged to. Probe paid Di

scover. DiL

uigi cl ai me d to have nev

er to ld a ny one at Nort h A

me rican ab out Di scover. Di Li ugi also te sti f i ed i n a n of f er of proof ab out s i m i l ar i nv es ti ga ti ons tha t he con duc ted on seve ra l ot her No rt h American e mployees , w hich included obt aining t elepho ne r eco rd s us ing Discover. Dolan was l

ikewi se hi s contact on tho se matters.

Testimony of Mike Perez Mi ke Perez was Lawl

or’s supervi sor at No rth Am erica n. Perez told Lawl

or t hat he h

ad concerns ab out her takin

g the le ad on the MapQuest account. He testifi ed that she was “res po nsible” for Map Que st and t hat Law lor re ceived co mmi ssio ns o n t he bus iness unt il she1-09-3603

14

resi gned. Af

ter her resign

ation, nobody

recei ved com mi ssions on the MapQuest bus in ess. Perez did not know if Lawl

or act uall y recei ved her comm

issi ons. Perez regularl

y pa rtici pated in sales presen

tations to pr ospective cl

ie nts. Perez stated t hat Nort h A me rican considers i

ts gross pro fi

t margi n to be confi

dentia l i nf ormation an

d never disclo ses t hat informat ion o ut side t he co mpany. P er ez e xplained, “[w] e’r e in a ver y compe t itive indust ry, a nd if ou r c omp et ito rs k new w hat ou r mar gin was , t hen t hey co uld u nder cut us a nd provi de th ose s ervi ces

to our customer.” Per ez tes ti f i ed tha t he wa s p res en

t when Bri stow si gned the af f i da vi t i n th e p ark i ng l ot of the O’Hare Toll

way Oasi s. Accordin

g to Perez, Bristow had revi ewed the af

fi davi t mul tiple tim es prior to t hat occasion, an

d the aff ida vi t was revi sed bas ed on Bri stow’s feedb ack. The topics covered i n the af fi davi t were based on a m

eetin g Bris to w attended at No rth Am erica n’s faci li ties with Va n Pari s and Perez, wh

ic h too k pla

ce af ter Lawlor had l

eft the compa

ny . Perez deni ed t hr ea t en ing Br ist o w in an y wa y. Testimony of John Miller Mi l l er h asbe en the pre si de nt of North A meri ca n s i nc e 1 988 . He

wa s i n c ha rge of da y-toda y opera ti on s a n d w as th e f i n al de cisi on maker at N orth A meri ca n . M i l l er made th e dec i si on to invest igat e Law lor aft er she ha d left No rt h American a nd as ked Gr eenblat t t o be in charg e o f the i n v esti ga ti on , w h i l e D ol an

ov er sa w th e i n v esti ga ti on . Gre en

b l att h ad b een i n v ol v ed wi th Nor th American fo r mo re t han 33 years . Miller k new t hat Gr eenblat t had hir ed P ro be t o c ond uct t he Law lor invest igat ion. Do lan had t he au t hor ity t o g ive Lawlo r’s per so nal informat ion fro m the Nor th American em

ployee fi le to P ro be so t hat P ro be cou ld use that inf or mation to get Lawlor’s1-09-3603

15

phon e rec ords. On o ne o cc as io n, Do lan sho we d M iller a lis t o f ha nd wr it t en ph o ne nu mbe r s a nd as ke d h im i f he rec ogn ize d a ny of the nu m be rs . Mi l l er k ne w that the n

um be rs we re i n r el ati on to th e L aw l or in vestigation but did not recognize an y of the num bers. Mi ll er neve r consi dered whether i

t was proper t o use an em

ploy ee’s personal

in form ation to o btain

phone records. Mi ll

er did n ot direct
an y bod y to obta i n Law l or’ s p hon

e re cord s a

nd tes ti f i ed tha t he di d n ot di ss ua deDol an or Greenb la tt from obtaini ng phone records because h

e assum ed that Nort h A

me rican wanted to get phone recor ds. Mill er als o t estif

ie d that in h

is 33 ye ars at Nort h A

me rican , no comm

is si oned sales representative ever recei

ved com mi ssions af ter leavi ng the com

pany . Nort h A

me rican in form ed Lawl or that sh

e woul d not rec ei

ve her 30% com

m i ssi on on th e Ma pQue st bu si

ne ss. Testimo ny of Lew

is Greenblatt Greenb la tt is an attor ney

in Ill in ois an d has represen

ted Nor th Am

erica n f or more than 30 yea rs . Gre en b l att reta i n ed Pro b e to i

n v esti ga te a v i ol ati on of a n on com pe ti ti on cl au se . Gre en

b l att instr uct ed P ro be t o c ont act No rt h American a nd did not give P ro be any o t her dire ct ions. Pr obe
never sen t Green bl att docum

en ts that i t had obtai ne d asa res

ul t of the Lawl or in

ve sti gati on. Greenb la tt did n ot li mi t what Pro be coul d do as part o f the i nve stigati on and di

d not call to get up da t es o n t he inve st iga t io n. Gr ee nbla t t t es t ified t ha t t he La wlo rinve st iga t io n w as fo rt he be ne fit of N orth A

merican . He s ought re i

m bur sem en t from North A merican be caus e hi s f

i rm pai d Probe
. Greenb l att di d not b i l l

an y tim e i n J une or Jul y 2005 on thi s m atter.1-09-3603

16 Rosemarie Egan Testimony Egan has been the chi ef f in anci al off ic er at Nor th Am

erica n si nce 2001. Egan es

tim ated t hat No rt h American’ s net wo rt h was app ro ximately $50 mil lion. E gan d id no t at t end a ny “l eadershi p team” m

eetin gs regardin

g the Lawl

or inv estigati on. Af

ter t he i nve stigati on was un de rwa y , i n A pri l 200 6, Eg an

approv ed an i nv oi ceto Gre en

bl att f or ap prox i mate l y $22 ,00 0, of whi ch approxi

ma tely $6,000 was lis

ted as paym

ent for i nve stigati ve serv ic es provi ded by

Probe. In Jul y 2005, Egan

sent Lawl

or a letter requesting that Lawlor pay bac k $20,035 that was owed to Nort h A

me rican as overpay

me nt on comm

is si ons she

had recei ved. Egan i

ncl uded a 46- page compi

la tion of North Am

erica n f in anci al records to support t hi s clai m, wh ic h i ncl uded a spreadshe et indi

catin g Nort h A

me rican ’s sal es am ount and gross profits earn ed on vari ous transact ions i

nvolv in g various cli

ents. Testimony of Roosevelt Boykins Boyki ns h as been an em ploy ee at SBC Am

eritech/A T&T si nce 2004. W

hen a customer cal l ed se ek i ng i nf orm ati on on an ac cou nt, the repres en tati ve wou l d gr ee t the cu stom er a nd as k f or t he cu st omer t o ve rify the a cco unt using a so cial secu rit y number o r t he ac co unt number . T he pho ne co mpany wo uld no t re lease a ny inf or matio n if the c aller d id no t pr ovid e su ffi cient i nf orma tion to conf i rm her i den tity
.Circuit Court Pr

oceedings The tria l l asted si x da y s. A t the cl ose of Lawl or’s c ase , North A

meri can moved f or a di rected ve rdict on L awl

or’s i ntrus i on cl

ai m , whi ch wasden i ed. North

Am erican moved f or a directed ve

rdict on the sam

e grounds at the close of a ll the evi dence. The ci

rcuit court reserved1-09-3603

3 The circui

t co urt formal

ly deni ed the motion a month later at a hearin g where it also returned its verdi

cts on the Nort h A

me rican counterclai

m, ess entia

ll y s tating that the agency question was

a fac t issue f or t he j ury to decide. 17 ruli ng on North Am

erica n’s second di

rected verdict 3 an

d sub m i tted La wl or’ s i n tru si on cl ai m to the jury. The j ury returned a v erdict i n f avor of Lawl

or o n he r in trusion cl ai m, awardi ng $65,000 i n c omp en satory

dam ages and $1,75 0,000 i

n pu ni tiv e dam ages , f or a total a

ward of $1,815 ,000. The j ury an

swered a series of def

ense draf ted special

in terro gator ie s desi

gned to test various asp ects of an y verdict agai

nst North A

merican . The j ur y ’s answ er s w er e c on siste

n t wi th i ts v erdi ct i n pl ai n ti f f ’s f av or b as ed on Nor th Am erica n’s direct i nvol vem ent in the in vestigation an

d its v ic arious l ia bi li ty, fi ndi ng that: (1) Dis cover obtaine d in

form ation ab out Lawlor’s phone cal ls through pretexting; (2) Pro be kn ew that Discover en

gaged i n pretextin

g in order t o obt ai

n i nf ormation ab out Lawl

or’s phone cal

ls ; (3) Dis cover was actin

g as Probe’s agen

t; (4) Pro be was a

cting as North Am

erica n’s agent when Probe got in

form ation ab out Lawlor’s phone cal ls from Dis cover, which was obtai ned through pr et ex t ing ; ( 5) No r t h Ame r ica n k ne w D isc o ve ro bt ain ed info r mat io n a bo ut La wlo r ’s ph o ne ca lls thr ough pretex ti ng ; a nd (6) North

A meri ca n a uthori ze d Pr obe or Disc ove

r to ob tai n i nf orm ati on about Lawlor’s ph

one calls through pretexting. Nort h A me rican fi le d a postt rial

motion, aski

ng the court t o (a) grant its second di rected
v erdi ct m oti on f i l ed at th e c l ose of al l th e ev i den ce ; or (b

) e n ter j udgm en t i n f av or of Nor th American o n Law lor ’s int ru sion c laim; or ( c) or der a new t rial; o r ( d) vaca t e, or re duc e t he1-09-3603

18

am ount o f the j ury’ s puni

tive da ma ges award. The ci

rcuit court denied the posttrial motion, b

ut did r edu ce t he pu nitive d amage s aw ar d by $1. 1 mill ion. North A meri ca n a ppe als, c onte

nd i ng tha t the ci rcu i t cou rt er red i n d en y i ng i ts m oti on f or di rected ve rdi ct a t the cl ose of the ev i de nc e a nd i n d en y i ng i ts p osttri al moti on f or j udg men t on La wlo r ’s int rus io n c laim. In her cross-appeal, Lawl or co ntends the ci rcuit court err ed i

n f in din g that she breach

ed h er f i du ci ar y du ty of l oy al ty as a N orth A meri ca n em pl oy ee b y di sc l osi n g c on f i den ti al Nor th A meri ca n i nf orm ati on to S ha m rock an d f or al l eg edl y sol i ci ti ng Ma pQ ue st’ s b

us i ne ss f or Sham rock. T he ci

rcuit court entered judgm ent agai nst Lawl or, awarding North Am

erica n $78 ,78 1 i n c om pe ns atory da mag esan d $5 51, 467i

n p un i ti ve da mag es , total

i ng $63 0,2 48. La

wl or al so appeals

the ci rcuit court’s entry of rem ittitur of the j ury’ s puni

tive da ma ges f rom $1,750,000 to $65 0,0 00;the

ci rcu i t cou rt’ s entr y of a di rected ve rdi ct agai ns t La wl or on he r cl ai m f or co mmi ssio ns und er t he “pr oc ur ing cau se” do ct rine; a nd se ver al ru lings of t he t rial co ur t in the
ev en t we gr an t No r t h Ame r ica n’s r eq ue st fo ra n ew t r ial.

ANALYS IS OF NO RT H AME RIC AN’S APP EAL North A merican f i rst con tend s tha t the ci rcui t court erred i

n de ny i ng i ts m otion f or a di re cte d verdi

ct, i ts m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. , and its mot ion for a new t rial on Lawlor’s i ntr us i on c l ai m be ca us e there wa s n o ev i de nc e to supp ort th e i

m pos i ti on of vi ca riousl i ab i l i

ty upon Nor th A meri ca n . L awl or re sp on dsth at th er e a reth re e b as es to i m pos e l i ab i l i ty ag ai n st N orth American: (1) Nor th American’s direct involvem ent in the pr ete xting; (2) No rt h Am erican’s
ra t ifi cat ion o f the pr et ext ing; o r ( 3) No rt h American’ s liabil ity for t he ac t s o f its ag ent , P ro be, and1-09-3603

19

i ts sub agen

t Di scover. We appl y the de novo standard i

n revi ewi ng the ci rcuit court’s deni al

of a di rected verdict
an d i ts d en i al of a m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. Buckholtz v. MacNeal Hospital , 337 Ill . App. 3d 163, 16 7 (200 3); Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc. , 397 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 , 31 (20 09). “‘[ V] erdi cts ought to be di

recte d and judgm

ents n.o.v. entered only

in those cases i

n wh ic h al l of the evi dence, when viewed i n i ts aspect most fav

orable to the opponent, so o verwhe lm in gly fav ors movan

t t hat no contrary verdi

ct based on that evi

dence could ever stand.’ ” Buckholtz, 337 Ill . App. 3d at 167 (quot in g Ped rick v. Peoria & Easte rn R.R. C o., 37 Ill . 2d 494, 510 (1967)). “A directed ve

rdict is gra nt ed impr op er ly where ‘ t her e is any evidenc e, t og et her wit h re aso nable infere nces t o be dra wn the ref rom, demons

trati ng a sub sta nti al f ac tua l di spute , or w

he re th e a ss es sm en t of
cr edibility of t he wit nesse s o r t he de t er minatio n re gar ding co nfli ct ing evidenc e is de cisive t o t he out come.’ ” Kim v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. , 3 53 I ll. App. 3d 4 44, 460 (2 004 ) ( quo t ing Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Il l . 2d 445 , 454 (1 992)). “[A] mot ion fo r jud gment not wit hst anding t he
ve r dic t pr es en t s a qu es t io n o f wh et he r , co nsid er ing t he ev ide nc e a nd all r ea so na ble infe r en ce s in t he light most favo ra ble to t he plaint iff , t her e is a t ot al failure o r lack of e vidence t o p ro ve any el em ent of the plai

ntif f' s case.” Spiegelman v. Victory Memorial Hospital, 392 Ill . App. 3d 826, 841 (2 009). We revi ew th e tri al

court’s deci sion on a motion f or a ne w tri al f or an a bus e of di scre tion
. Buckholtz, 337 Ill . App. 3d at 167. “If the trial judge , in the exerci se of h

is dis cretion, fi

nds that the verdict is agai

nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce, he should grant a new trial ; on the other1-09-3603

20

hand, where there is suf

fi cien t evidence to suppo rt t he verdi ct o f the j ury, it constitut es an abuse of di scretion f

or t he trial

court to grant a motion f or a new trial .” Maple v. Gustafson , 151 Ill . 2d 445, 45 6 (199 2). If an agency relationshi

p exi sted, Nor th Am

erica n can be h el d li abl e for Probe’s tort ious
co ndu ct und er t he d o ct rine o f respondeat super ior , i f the tort wa s c om

m i tted w i thi n th e s cop e of t he ag en t ’s ag en cy. Krickl v. Girl Scouts, Illinois Cross roads Council, Inc. , 402 Il l . Ap p. 3d 1, 4 (2010). “Al

though the exi stence of an agency relationshi

p usual ly is a question of

fact, i t is an issue of l aw where the facts relating to t he relationsh ip are undi sputed o r no li abili ty exi sts as a
ma tt er of l aw.” Krickl , 402 Ill . App. 3d at 5. “[T]he exi stence an d extent of an a

gency re latio nship may be est ablished by circ umst ant ial evidence base d up on a n examinat ion o f the si tuation of the parties, thei r acts, and other relevan

t circum stances.” Stefa ni v. B aird & W arner, Inc. , 157Ill . A

pp. 3d 1 67, 171 (19 87) . “W he n th e f ac ts re l i ed upon to es tab l i sh

the ex i stenc e of an ag ency re latio nship ar e co nfli ct ing, o r c onflict ing inferenc es c an be d ra wn fro m them, t he question i s one of f act f or the j ury

***.” Knauerhaze , 361 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 559 . The e xi

stenc e of
an agen cy relati onsh

i p m ust b e prov ed b

y a prep onderance of

the evi den ce. Knauerhaze , 36 1 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 559. T he pa r amo un t co nsid er at io n in d et er mining wh et he ran ag en cy r ela t io nsh ip e xist s is wh ethe r the a l l eged agen t retai ns the ri ght to control

the m an ner of d oin g the work. Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc. , 1 88 I ll. 2d 1 7, 46 ( 199 9) . C ou rt s sho uld also co nsider “ ‘t he qu esti on of th e h i ri n g, t h e ri gh t to di sch arge , the m

an n er of di re cti on of th e s er v an t, the ri gh t to1-09-3603

21

termi nate the rel ationsh

ip, an d the character of the superv is ion of the work do ne.’ ” Petrovich , 188 Ill . 2d at 46 (quo ting Merlo v. Publ ic Service Co. o f Northern I llinois, 381 Ill . 300, 319 (19 42) ). H owe ve

r, thes e f ac tors “ mere l y serv e a s g

ui de s to re sol

vi ng the pri mary que sti on of whether the al

le ged agent i s truly

an i ndepen dent contracto r or is sub

je ct to contro l.” Petrovich , 188 Ill . 2d at 47. Ini tia l l y , we shoul

d note that North A

merican ’stheory

at tria l and argu men t on app eal

are inconsistent with its o wn judici al admission on t he agency i ssue. I n Nor th American’s

“ Oppos i ti on to L awl or’ s S uppl

em en t to h er Mot i on to En f orc e P rob e’ s S ub

poe n a a n d M oti on

to Qua sh Su bpo enas for Te lepho ne Re co rd s,” co unse l for N or t h American s t at ed t hat bot h Pr obe
an d D i sc ov er

were“ ag en

ts o f Nor th A meri ca n ’s attor n ey th at h ad b een re tai n ed to i n v esti ga te Lawlor’s empl

oym ent activ ities whi le em ploy ed by Nort h A me rican .” Thi s f

il in g was supported by an af fi davi t o f North Am

erica n’s atto rney, Greenbl

att, averri ng that “Probe perf

ormed inv estigat or y services, as my agent and at my direct ion, co ncerning the circumstances o f Lawlor’s
em ploy me nt at Nor th Am

erica n.” Judi ci al ad m i ss i ons are f orm al ad m i ss i ons i n th e p l eadi ng s th at have th e e f f ec t of wi thdra wi ng a f act f rom i ssue an d di spens i ng w hol l y wi th the ne ed f or proof of

the f act. Konstant Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , 40 1 I ll. A pp . 3d 83 , 86 ( 20 10 )
. Ou rsu pr eme cou rt d ef i n es j udi ci al ad m i ss i on s a s “de l i

b erate , c l ea

r, u n eq ui v oca l sta tem en ts b y a p ar ty ab out a concrete fact wi

thin that part y' s knowl edge.” Roti v. Roti , 364 Ill . App. 3d 191, 200, 845 N.E. 2d 892, 900 (2006) (quo ting In re Estate of Rennick , 18 1 Il l . 2d 395 , 40 6-0 7 (1 998 )). A

n a dm i ss i on1-09-3603

22

i n a n un veri f i ed pl eadi ng s i gne d by

an attorney i s b i ndi ng on the p arty as a j udici al adm i ssi on. Knauerhaze v. Nels on , 361 Ill . App. 3d 538, 558 (2005). “Where m ade, a judi

ci al adm is si on ma y not be co nt ra dict ed in a mo t ion fo r su mmary judgment [c itat ion] or at t rial [c itat ion] . T he purpose of the rule i

s to remove the temptation to comm it perj ury.” Roti , 364 Ill . App. 3d at 200 (quot in g In re Estate of Rennick , 181 Il l . 2d at 40 6-07). First , c or po ra t e co unse l for N or t h American, Gr eenblat t , a ver re d t hat Pr obe was an ag ent at the direction of

Nort h A me rican . Second, li

tigation couns el

for North Ame

rican averred that bo t h P r o be an d D isc o ve rwe r e a ge nt s o f No r t h Ame r ica n a nd inc o r po r at ed Gr ee nbla t t ’s affid av it into No rt h Am

erican’s Oppo sition to Lawlor’s S upplement to her Mo tion t o E nforce Pr obe’s Su bpo ena a nd Mo t ion t o Q uas h Su bpo enas for Te lepho ne Re co rd s. N or t h American is bo und by the judi ci al adm is si ons of i

ts counsel . Thus, Nort h A me rican ’s adm

is si on that Pro be an

d Dis cover were a gents w as suffi

cient to esta bli

sh that Pro be and Discover we re act ing as Nort h Am erican’s agen ts. Notwi th sta n di n g th i s a dm i ss i on , the ev i den ce

addu ce d a

t tri al i s m oreth an suf f i ci en t to su ppor t the j ury ’s f i nd i ng s th at: Prob e w asac ti

ng asNorth A meri ca n’ s a ge nt w he n Prob e g ot in form ation ab out Lawlor’s phone cal ls from Dis cover, which was obtai ned through pretextin

g; Nort h A me rican knew Discover obtain

ed i nf ormation ab out Lawl

or’s phone cal

ls through pretexting; and North Am erica n authorized Probe or Di scover to o btain in form ation ab out Lawl or’s phone cal l s throug h pr etex tin g. The j ur y h ea rd testi mon y ab out th e cri ti ca l i n terac ti on of Nor th A meri ca n em pl oy ee s wi th1-09-3603

23

the investigative entity that eventually obt ained the pho ne reco rds, which was central t o Law lor’s cla im ag ain st No r t h Ame r ica n. Fir st an d fo r emo st , DiL uig i, t he pr es ide nt an d a pp ar en t ly t he so le emp lo yee o f Pr o be , t es t ified t ha t Do lan inst ruc t ed him t o ge t La wlo r ’s ph o ne r ec o r ds
. T his is
su r ely c o nsis t en t wit h a pr inc ipa l ex er cis ing it s c o nt r o l o ve rit s a ge nt , by g iving sp ec ific in form ation to o btain

priv ate phone records. Dolan, who was the v ic e presi dent of operations at Nort h A me rican , testifi ed that he corresponded with Di Luigi di rectly . It was Do la

n wh o pro vi ded the i nf orma tion ab out Lawl

or to Probe, i

nc l udi ng Lawl or’s n am e, add ress , soci al sec uri ty n um ber, birt hday, and c ell phone and ho me pho ne number s, t hat enabled Pr obe t o o bt ain Lawlo r’s pho ne logs. Dolan

al so test if

ie d that DiLui

gi told h im that he typi

cally obtaine d the phone l

ogs of other pers on s i n si m i l ar i n v esti ga ti on s w h er e th er e w as a c on cern

ab out c om

pe ti ti on . D ol an

cl ai med to be un aw are of what Pr obe wa s g oi ng to do wi th th i s i nf orm ati on, bu t ad m i tted h e w asnot su rp ri se d w h en h e r ec ei v ed La wl or’ s ph on e l

ogs . Th e ev i den ce

also i n di ca tes th at N orth Am erican rece i ve d at least fi

ve f ax es f rom Probe w

i th i nf orma tion ab out Lawl

or’s phone rec ords. These records contain

ed m ore t han 700 han dwritten entri es wi

th in form ation ab out what num

ber
wa s c al l ed , the ti me of th e c al l an d th e l en gth of th e c al l . A t n o poi n t di d D ol an tel l Di Lu i gi to st op send ing him f

axes . Whe n ask ed w hy he did no t ask how Pr obe obt ained L awlo r’s pho ne re co rd s, D olan t est ifed t hat he “re lied on M r. Gr eenblat t and M r. DiLuigi in per for ming the pr oc edu re s in the invest igat ion. ” Aft er re ceiving t he pho ne log s, D olan p er so nally resea rc hed t he phone n umb ers on the l ogs through internet search es and cons

ulted wi th ot her North Am

erica n1-09-3603

24

ex ecuti ve s to fol l ow-up on

wh o the n

um bers b elonge d to. Van P ar is simi

larly te st ifi

ed t hat he r ece ived faxes of p hone number s fro m Pro be t hat he
assu med we re Law lor ’s, loo ked at t he number s t o s ee if any of t hem loo ked famil iar t o him, a nd researched the ph

one num bers on the Internet. In an ot her rem arkabl e bi t o f testim

ony tha t estab l i shes that North A

merican ex ercised control over i ts age nt i nv esti gator, i ts pres i den

t, Mi l l er, testi f i ed th at D ol an

h ad th e a uth ori ty to gi v e L aw l or’ s p er son

al i n f orm ati on f rom th e N orth American employee f

il e to Pro be so t hat P ro be cou ld use that inf or mation to get Lawlor’s personal phone recor ds. Mil ler sai d he never even

considered whether it was pro per t o use La wl or’ s p ers ona

l i nf orm ati on to g et her phon

e re cord s. Mi l l er a

l so n ever i ns tructed Dol an to not obt ain the pho ne r eco rd s bec aus e Miller as sumed t hat No rt h American w ant ed t o g et pho ne records. This testim

ony i s enti rely consi stent with the j ury’ s verdi cts and i ts answers to specia

l in terr ogat ories. Addit ionally, Gr eenblat t instr uct ed P ro be t o c ont act No rt h American a nd did not give Pro be any ot her directions. Pro be nev er sent Greenblatt do cuments that it had obt ain ed as a
re sult of t he Law lor invest igat ion. Gr eenblat t did no t lim it w hat Pr obe co uld d o a s pa rt of t he invest igat ion and did no t call to get upd at es o n t he invest igat ion. Gr eenblat t t est ifi ed t hat t he Lawl or in ve sti gation wa s f

or the b enef

i t of North Am erican . On the othe r h an d, N orth A meri ca n pri mari l y rel i eson e vi de nc e that i

t wa s u na wa re of how Pr obe obt ained L awlo r’s pho ne r eco rd s. N or t h American a lso p oint s t o D olan’ s t est imony that he nev

er in structed Greenbl att how t o conduct t he i nve stigati on, and North Am erica n ne ver1-09-3603

25

paid Probe directly

for any of

the inv estigative work. Rat her, Dolan signed off on two paymen ts, $15,00 0 an

d $22,9 94.88, to Gre en

bl att’s l aw f i rm , whi ch were then f orwarde d to Probe. Greenb l att testi f

i ed th at he

bi l l ed l i ttle, i f an y , tim e rega rdi ng th i s i nv esti gati on. Because North Am

erica n di d present contrary ev

ide nce as to the exi stence of an agency re latio nship, t he t rial co ur t pr op er ly submi t t ed t his issue t o t he jur y. Afte r c ar efully reviewing t he evidence in

the li ght most favorable to Lawlor, it cannot be said that the evidence so
o ve rwh elming ly favo r s N o r t h Ame r ica n t ha t no co nt r ar y ver dic t ba se d o n t ha t ev ide nc e c o uld ever stand. North Am

erica n’s defen se as presen

ted to the jury

and to this court on appeal was
ess en tia l l y one of pl aus i bl e den i ab i l i ty, w i th North A

merican clai m i ng th at i ts sup ervi sors w ere unaware of w

hat its l awy er’s i nve stigator was doing. It is a ls o obvious that North Ame rican was quite wi ll in g to work with the i

nve stigator’s il

l-gotten gain . The j ury appea rs to have not belie

ved
so me of t he claims o f No rt h American’ s o ffi cer s and employee s while having be en pe rsu ade d by the plentiful evi

dence t o t he cont rary, much of which was referenced a bove. Finall y, the jury’s
answ er s t o s pec ial inter ro gat or ies, d ra fte d by No rt h American, ar e ent irely co nsist ent wit h act ive par t icipat ion o n defend ant ’s pa rt and a finding of a p rincipa l/age nt re latio nship bet wee n defend ant
and the i nv esti gators. We wi ll not substitute our judgme nt for the j ury' s nor rewei gh the ev ide nce. We concl

ude that Lawlor ef

fecti vel y proved that Probe was North Am erica n’s agent and that North Am erica n exer cised sufficient co nt ro l over its a gent in the p ro ces s o f invading Law lor ’s pr ivacy ove r t he
cou rs e of som e f i v e m on th s. A cc ordi

n gl y , the c i rc ui t cou rt di d n ot er r i n den y i n g N orth1-09-3603

26

A meri ca n ’s moti on f or a di re cte d verdi

ct a n d i ts m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. on Law l or’ s i

ntr us i on clai m . With r ega rd t o t he t rial co ur t ’s de nial of No rt h American’ s mot ion fo r a new t rial, fo r t he
r ea so ns d eline at ed ab o ve , we ho ld t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n in d en ying t his
m otion be caus e the

j ury ’sverdict was

not aga i nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. North A meri ca n’ s n ex t con ten ti on c onc ern

s th e p un i ti ve da mag esaw ard

ed to La wl or on her i ntrus i on cl

ai m . The j ury returned a v

erdi ct of $ 1,750,0 00. North

Am erican argue s tha

t there was no eviden

ce to suppor t a verdict o f an y puni tive dam ages, and that the verdict in thi s case vi ol ate s I l l i noi s c om mon l aw an d c ons ti tutiona l pri nc i ples . La wl or re sp onds th

at the entr

y of pu nit ive da mag es ag ain st No r t h Ame r ica n w as pr o pe rbe ca us e N o r t h Ame r ica n e ss en t ially dire ct ed P ro be t o c ommit t he t or t iou s co nduc t . I n t he alt er nat ive, La wlor ar gue s t hat punit ive da mag es werepr oper b ec au se

th e j ur y f oun d N orth A meri ca n au th ori ze d P rob e or

Di sc ov er to ob tai n i n f orm ati on ab out L awl or’ s te l ep h on e l ogs th rou gh pr etexti n g, c au si n g actual i n j ur y to La wlo r , sa t isfying t he r eq uir eme nt s u nd er t he t he o ry o f co r po r at e c o mplic it y. I n he rcr o ss - ap pe al, Law lor also re que st s t hat we r einst at e t he jur y’s or iginal awar d o f $1. 75 milli on in p unit ive dam ages . We ut ili ze a t hre e- st ep a ppr oa ch in review ing a t rial co ur t 's de cision t o a war d pu nitive da mag es , con

si de ri ng : “ ‘( 1) w he the r pu ni ti ve da mag esare avai l ab l e f or th e p arti

cul ar c au se

of action, usi

ng a de novo standard; (2) whether, un der a ma nifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce standa

rd, the defe ndan t o r defen dants acted fraudul

ently , mal ic iousl y or i n a m ann er that warrants such1-09-3603

27

dam ages; an d (3) whether the trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

im posin g puni tive da ma ges.’ ” Dubey v. Public Storage, Inc. , 3 95 I ll. App. 3d 3 42, 355 (2 009 ) ( quo t ingCaparos v. Morton, 364 Il l . Ap p. 3d 15 9, 178 ( 2006) ). Un de rt he firs t co nsid er at io n, ne it he rpa rt y cla ims t ha t pu nit ive da mag es ar e u na va ilable for an unr eas ona ble intr usio n upo n sec lusion c aus e o f act ion. Our re sea rc h has d isclos ed no reason why

puni tive da ma ges would b e unav

ai la ble for such

a cause. See Slovins

ki v. Elliott, 237 Ill . 2d 51, 58 (2010) (“[p]uniti ve dam ages m ay be awarded wh

en the def endan t’s to rtious conduct
evi nc es a hi gh d egree of m oral cul pab i l i ty” ). We thus turn to the s econ

d con siderati

on. Under th e se cond

cons i derati

on, “ pun i tiv e dam ages may be awar ded w hen torts are com m i tted wi th ‘f ra ud , a ctual mal i ce , de l i b erate violence or op pr essio n, o r w hen t he de fendant
ac ts w i l l f ul l y , or w i th s uc h g ros s n eg l i ge nc e a s to i

nd i ca te a wa nton di sr eg ard of the righ ts of ot hers.’ ” Kennan v. Checker Taxi C o. , 250 Il l . Ap p. 3d 15 5, 160 ( 1993) (quot in g Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. , 7 4 I ll. 2d 1 72, 186 (1 978 )) . “P unit ive damag es a re not awa rd ed a s co mpensa t ion, but serve i

nstead to punish

the off ender an d to deter t hat party and others f rom comm

ittin g si mi la r acts of wrongdoing i

n the f uture.” Kennan , 250 Ill . App. 3d at 160. “To det ermi ne wh ether punit ive damag es a re app ro pr iate , ‘t he t rier of fac t can p ro per ly conside r t he cha ra ct er of t he de f en da nt' s act, th

e n atu re a nd ex ten t of the ha rm to the pl ai nti f f tha t the de f en da nt c au se d or in tended to cause and the weal th of the def

endan t.’ ” Slovinski , 237 Ill. 2d at 58 ( quo t ing Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Torts §908(2) ( 1979)). “Because pun iti ve dam ages are pen

al in nature, they ‘are not f av ored i n the law, an

d the courts m ust take cauti on to see that pun i tiv e dam ages are1-09-3603

28

not im properly or unwis el

y a warded.’ ” Slovinski , 2 37 I ll. 2d a t 58 ( quo t ingKelsay, 74 Ill .2d at 188). “Whe n t he lia bility o f a c o rp o ra t e d efe nda nt is p re dic at ed up o n a t heo ry o f respondeat superior , the im

positi on of puni

tive da ma ges i s narrowly

ci rcums crib ed.” Kennan , 250 Ill . App. 3d a t 160 . I n Mattyasovszky v. We st Tow n’s Bus Co. , 61 I ll. 2 d 3 1, 36
- 37 ( 19 75 ) , o ur su pr eme co ur t ado pt ed s ect ion 2 17C t he Re st at ement (S eco nd) of Ag ency (1 958 ) a nd st at ed t hat punit ive dam ages can be awarded agai

nst a pri nci pal for the act of an agen

t if : (1) the princi

pal authorized t he do ing an d t he man ne ro f t he ac t , o r( b) t he ag en t wa s u nfit an d t he pr inc ipa l wa s r ec kle ss in employing him, o r ( c) t he ag ent was employed in a manage rial cap acit y and wa s ac t ing in the
sc opeof hi s em pl oy men t, or (d ) th e p ri nc i pal or a m an ag eri al ag en t of the pri nc i pal rati f i ed or approv ed th e ac t. Here , a s w e h

av e deta i l ed ab ov e, La

wl or p rof f er ed suf f i ci en t ev i den ce f or th e j ur y to con cl ude tha t North A meri ca n a uthori ze d Pr obe to obta i n h er pri va te p hon e re cord s a

nd di d n ot seek t o pu t any li

mi ts o n its methods in doing so. In sum, t his evi dence sugg ests t hat Lawlo r’s
r ec o r ds we r e o bt ain ed o n a nu mbe ro f o cc as io ns, an d t ha t No r t h Ame r ica n a ct ed willfu lly in disre gar ding La wlor ’s r ight s by acce pt ing t he pho ne r eco rd s sent t o it by Pro be and by using t he f rui ts of th i s i m proper i nv esti gati on by cond ucti ng i ts own r ese arch whi l e util izi

ng th e ph one l ogs. Acco rd ingly, it wa s no t aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce fo r t he t rial co ur t t o a llow t he jury to consider puni

tive da ma ges. The court also heard ev ide nce i n an off er of proof that est ablished t hat No rt h American inst itu t ed a t least t wo simi lar invest igat ions fo r e mployee p hone1-09-3603

29

re co rd s. E ven t hou gh t he t rial co ur t pr event ed t he jur y from hea ring t hat evidenc e, it is r elevant t o o ur r ev iew o f t he ap pr o pr iat en es s o f su bmit t ing t he iss ue o f p un it ive da mag es t o t he ju ry. Un der the th i rd con si dera ti on , w e m

us t deter m i n e w h eth er th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts discr et ion in ass essing p unit ive damag es. “A tr ial cou rt do es no t abus e its discr et ion u nless no reasonabl e person could as sum

e i ts vi ew.” Dubey , 3 95 I ll. App. 3d a t 356 . We co nclude t he evi dence detai

le d above is m

ore t han suf fi ci ent for a reasonab le

person to fin

d Lawl or deserved an
awa rd of p unit ive damag es, and t he t rial co ur t , t her efo re , d id no t abus e its discr et ion in allow ing the j ury to consi der pu ni tiv e dam ages . Next, Nort h A

me rican contends that the amount of pun iti ve dam ages awarded was
exce ssive. Law lor , mea nwhile, u rg es t his co ur t t o r einst at e t he full amou nt of t he pu nitive dam age a ward, a rgui ng, inter al

ia , that t he court’s anal

ys is was f aul ty an d that it fai

le d to take int o ac co un t t ha t La wlo rha d i nc ur r ed o ve r$6 00 , 00 0 i n le ga l fe es an d t ha t sh e mu st pa y a co nt ing en cy fe e t o t he law yer s w ho t o o k h er ca us e t o t r ial. Se ct io n 2 –1 20 7 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Pr oc edu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 120 7 ( West 200 4) ) p ro vides t hat t he “t rial co ur t may, in its d iscre t ion, wit h r es pe ct t o pu nit ive da mag es , de t er mine w he t he ra ju ry aw ar d fo rpu nit ive da mag es is excessi ve, and if so, ent er a remittitur and a co ndi tional n ew tr ial .” When a ci

rcuit cou rt r educes a j ury 's pun i ti ve da mag e a wa rd b y rem i tti tur, we re vi ew the cou rt' s dec i si on f or an ab us e of di scre tion
. Slovinski , 2 37 I ll. 2d a t 58. We will now c ons ider if the jur y’s verd ict w as e xces sive
or whet her t he co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in re mitt ing t he ver dict by $1. 1 mill ion. To det er mine if

an aw ar d is exc essive, we lo ok t o “a fact -sp ecific set of r elevant1-09-3603

30

circu msta nces including: ‘(1 ) t he nat ur e and eno rmity o f the wr ong , ( 2) t he financial st at us o f the defen dant, and (3) the potential li abi li ty of the def

endan t.’ [Citation.]” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 358. “ ‘The

hi ghl y f actual n ature of the assessm

ent of puni

tive da ma ges dictates t hat a great
am oun t of de f er en ce sh oul d b e af f ord ed th e dete rm i n ati on made a t th e tr i al cou rt l ev el , a n d to
re flect t hat defer ence and t he highly factu al nat ur e o f the det er minatio n, w e r eview t he as sess ment of puni tive da ma ges on a m

anifes t-weight-of-the-evi

dence stan

dard.’ ” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 358 (quot in

g Turn er v

. Fir star Bank, N .A. , 363 Ill . App. 3d 1150, 1161-62 (2006)). “ ‘A judge
or jury's as sess ment o f punit ive damag es w ill not be r ever sed unless t he manifest weight of t he
ev i de nc e s how s th

at the a ss es sm

en t wa s s o exce ss i

ve asto de mons

trate pa ss i on, pa

rti al i ty , or corrupt ion on the pa

rt o f the dec is ion-m

aker.’ ” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 358 (quo ting Franz v. Cala co De

velo pmen t Cor

p., 352 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 29, 114 5 (200 4)). Here , w e c on cl

ud e th at th e j ur y ’s aw ard of $1 .75 m i l l i on wa s rea son

ab l e g i v en Nor th Am erica n’s reprehens ible

conduct. The nature and the i nappropriatenes s of the i

ntrusiv e conduct in meddling wit h plaint iff

’s pe rso nal rec or ds w as su ffi cient ly m alevo lent t o w ar ra nt punit ive da mag es , e sp ec i al

l y con si deri n g th at N orth A meri ca n on m ul ti pl e oc ca si on s, ov er a f i v e- mon th peri od, spe ci f i cal l y uti l ized th

e wron gf ull y obtai ne d phone re cords. W

hi l e se veral of i ts off i cers and em ploye es testif

i ed th at they

were una ware of the m ethodol ogy of h ow the re cords were obt ained a nd whe t her unet hical or ill ega l means wer e ut ili

zed , N or t h American p oint s t o no evi den ce showi ng i t was u nc omf ortabl e wi th the rece i pt or the us e of

thi s pri va te i nf orma tion . To t he co nt ra ry, N or t h American e mployees t est ifi ed t hat t hey had no hesit ancy in using t he pho ne1-09-3603

31

records and that they n

ever i nqui red how they were obtaine d. In terms of the s iz e of the award, t he jur y heard t hat No rt h American’ s net wo rt h was app ro ximately $50 mil lion. I t can s car cely be
ar gue d t hat t he amo unt awa rd ed by t he jur y was eg re gio usly high, g iven bot h t he nat ur e o f the cond uct an d the ex tent of def endan t’s n et worth. W e f ur th er f i n d th at th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n re du ci n g th e j ur y ’s v erdi ct.

“ Ju ries h av e th e u n i qu e a b i l i ty to ‘ ar ti cul ate com m un i ty v al ue s’ an d ev al ua te ‘ th e r ep re h ensi

b i l i ty of a def endan t’s conduct for the purposes of awardi ng puni tive da ma ges.’ ” Blount v. Stroud , 395 Ill . App. 3d 8, 23 (2009) (quo ting Franz v. Calaco Dev elopment Corp. , 352 Ill . App. 3d 1129, 1144 ( 2004) ), appeal denied, 235 Ill . 2d 585 (2010), and cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010 ). Her e, t he co ur t simply re duc ed t he ver dict t o a n amou nt t hat re pr ese nt ed 1 0 t imes the
amou nt of c omp ensa t or y damage s. “[ U] nder t he I lli nois c ommo n law ana lysi s, t her e is no requirem ent that the amount of puni tive da ma ges i mposed on a def

endan t bear any particular propo rtion to t he si

ze of the pl

ai ntif f’ s compen

satory recovery .” Blount , 395 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 23. In our vi ew, the trial

court fai le d to take in

to account the fact that Lawl or has i ncurred m

ore t han $600,000 in

atto rney fees in her ef fort to correct Nort h A

me rican ’s i nvasi on of her pri

vacy . Our suprem e court has held that it is

appropriate for a court t o consider the am ount o f attorney f

ees ex pen ded w hen a sse ssi

ng th e propri ety of puni tiv e dam ages . International Union Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Lowe Excavating Co. , 225 Ill. 2d 456, 490 ( 2006) . Redu cing Lawlor’s punit ive damag e aw ar d t o $ 650 ,0 00 w ou ld esse nt ially gua ra nt ee t hat only her lawyers wo uld be
com pen sa ted . N orth

A meri ca n wou l d b e e ss en

ti al l y em b ol den ed to co n ti n ue i ts b eh av i or w i th1-09-3603

32

ot her employee s, c omfo rt able in the kno wledg e t hat it co uld u se it s su per ior po sitio n and
en orm ouswe al th to d i sc oura gean y em pl oyeef rom taki ng l eg al ac ti on a gai ns t i t f or thi s s ort of cond uct. Th us, the rem

i ttitur wa s an

abuse of the tri al

court’s di scre tion
. Next, we appl

y the de novo sta

nd ard i n r ev i ew i ng North A meri ca n’ s a l tern ati ve con ten ti on that t he am

ount o f dam

ages asse ssed agai

nst i t were unconstitutional

. Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 359. We consi

der three constitutional

guide posts as we revi ew awards of pun iti ve dam ages: “‘ (1) t he de gr ee o f the re pr ehens ibil ity o f the defend ant 's misco nduc t , ( 2) t he disp ar ity bet wee n t he act ual o r p ot ent ial harm suffer ed by t he plaint iff and t he pu nitive d amage s aw ar d, and ( 3) t he dif f ere nc e b etw een th

e p un i ti ve da mag esaw ard

ed by the j ury an d the c i vi l pe na l ti esau thor ize d or im posed in comparab le

cases.’ ” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 359 (quo ting Turner, 363 Ill . App. 3d at 1162 -63). To det ermi

ne reprehe

nsi bi li ty, revi ewi ng courts consider: “

‘(1) whether the harm ca used
wa s ph y si ca l as opp ose d to e con

om i c, (2 ) w h eth er th e tor ti ous con du ct ev i n ce d a n i n dif f er en ce to or a reckless di

sregard of the he al

th or safety of

ot hers, (3) whether the target of the conduct had fi nan ci al vul nerabi li ty, (4) whether the conduct in volv ed repeated actions or was an i solated i nc i den t, and (5) wh ethe r the h arm wasthe re sul

t of i nten tion al mal i ce, trickery

, dece i t, or mere accident.’ ” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 359 (quo ting Turn er v . Fir star Bank, N .A. , 363 Ill . App. 3d 1150, 1163 (20 06)). Here, Lawlor pr esented evidence that she sustained ph ysi cal i nj uries as a
re su l t of Nor th A meri ca n ’s con du ct, i n cl udi n g v om i ti n g, s l ee pl es sn es s, f ea r, a n d a n x i ety. N orth Am erica n’s conduct in

volv ed ordering pri

vate phone records wi

thout consent through1-09-3603

33

sur re pt itio us a nd une t hical means. No rt h American d id t his ove r a per iod of five mont hs and repeated the process with at l east two ot her em ploy ees. Addi tional ly , Nort h A me rican intent ionally ut ili

zed Law lor ’s r eco rd s and made no at t empt t o p re vent Pr obe fro m obt aining t ho se r ec o r ds
. At t r ial a nd o n a pp ea l, No r t h Ame r ica n st ill ar de nt ly maint ain s t ha t it did absol utely nothin g wrong in

this regard and contends that i t has no responsi

bi li ty f or t he conduct of i ts empl oyees i n util izin g those records, not to me ntion the i nve stigators who obtained them thr ough pretex ti ng . Ba se d on

thi s evi de nc e, L aw l or es

tab l i sh ed a suf f i ci en t de gre e of reprehens ibil

ity on the part o f North Am erica n be cause there was ev

ide nce of i ntentiona l m al ic e, trickery and decei

tful conduct by i

t and its agents. Under the second gui

depost t he Suprem

e Court has stated t hat “f

ew awards exceedi

ng a sing le- dig it ra t io bet we en p unit ive a nd c o mpe nsa t o ry d ama ge s, t o a s ignifica nt de gr ee , w ill sat isfy due process.” State Fa rm Mutual Aut omobile Insurance

Co. v. Camp bell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2 00 3) . “ On t he o t her han d, ra t io s g re at er t han t ho se may co mpo rt wit h du e p ro ce ss if a particularly

egregious act has

resul ted in onl y a sm al l a mount of econom

ic dam ages.” Dubey , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 359 (citin

g Turner , 363 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 1164). In

thi s ca se, the com

pen satory dam ages were $65,00 0 an

d pl ai ntif f ha s i ncurred m

ore than $600,0 00 i

n l egal f ees to acqui re just ice for t he invasio n of he r p rivacy. The t rial co ur t failed t o t ake t he lega l fees incur re d by pla int iff int o ac co un t , wh ich ign o r es t he bu r de n t ha t pla int iff ha d t o be ar in o r de rt o br ing t his
ma tt er bef ore a jury . When

the fee s are consi

dered, the ratio is l

ess than 3 to 1, which sati sf

ie s any critical exam in ation of Il li nois and Suprem

e Court case law on thi s subj ect. See Blount , 3951-09-3603

34

Ill . App. 3d at 29 (cour t not ed that the combi nation of compensatory dam

ages and a

tt orney f ees red uc ed the pun i ti ve vs . com pe ns atory rati o f rom 10 to 1 to 2 to 1) ; s eeal so International Union , 225 Ill . 2d at 490. The thi rd gui depos t is the d i f f eren ce b etween the pun

i tiv e dam ages awar ded b y the j ury an d the c i vi l pe na l ti esau thor ize d or i m pos ed i n c om pa rabl e c as es . Il

l i noi s a nd f ed era l l aw now bo t h ma nd at e t ha t pr et ex t ing t o o bt ain ph o ne r ec o r ds is a felo ny p un isha ble by jail t ime a nd civ il pe na lt ies
. Se e 7 20 I LC S 5 /1 6G –1 5( a) ( 7) ( We st 20 08 ) ; 1 8 U
. S. C. §1 03 9( a) ( We st 20 06 )
. While t his legislat ion wa s no t in effect at t he t ime of No rt h American’ s co nduc t in this ca se, it she ds light on the gravi

ty of the of

fen se. Ap plying t he t hr ee gu ide po st s, we co nc lud e t ha t t he jur y’s aw ar d o f $1
. 75 million in pu nit ive da mag es wa s no t un co nst it ut io na l.

ANALYS IS OF LAWLO R’S CRO SS -AP PE AL We n ow tur n to t he i ssues raised i n Lawl or’s cross-appeal. A s m

entione d above, the trial
co ur t co nd uc t ed a c o nt emp o r an eo us be nc h t r ial o n N o r t h Ame r ica n’s co un t er cla im, s inc e it sounded i n equi ty. One m

onth after the j ury h

ad returned its ve

rdicts on Lawl

or’s clai m, the tria

l court heard oral argum

ents of counsel

and then returned its f

in din gs, orall y a nd i n m em orandum f orm, f i nd i ng tha t La wl or b rea ch ed he r f i duc i ary duty to North A meri ca n b y send i ng Ch ri stens on at Shamr oc k a let t er co nt aining No rt h American’ s co nfident ial, pr op riet ar y inf or matio n and by atte m pti n g to stee r M ap Qu est’s

b us i n es s ( al b ei t unsucc es sf

ul l y ) f rom Nor th A meri ca n to Sham rock. T he ci

rcuit court entered judgm ent agai nst Lawl or, awarding North Am

erica n1-09-3603

35

$7 8, 78 1 in co mpe nsa t o ry da mag es ( fo rr ep ayme nt o f co mpe nsa t io n e ar ne d w hile a lleg ed ly in bre ach of h er duty of l oya l ty) a nd $ 551,46 7 i

n pu ni tiv e dam ages , totali

ng $ 630,24 8. We r ev iew a t r ial c o ur t 's d ec isio n fo llo win g a be nc h t r ial t o de t er mine if t he jud gme nt is agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Gambino v. Boulevard Mortage Corp. , 398 Ill . App. 3d 2 1, 51 ( 200 9) . A jud gment is not aga inst t he manifest weight of t he o f the evidenc e unles s t he opposi te conc l usi on i s cl earl y evi den t. Gambino , 3 98 I ll. App. 3d a t 51. As t he t rier of fac t , t he tria l j udge wasi n the b est posi

tion to jud ge th e cre di

bi l i ty of wi tnes ses . Chicago’s Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago’s Pizza F

ranchise Ltd. USA , 384 Il l . Ap p. 3d 84 9, 859 ( 2008) . “W hen c ontradi

ctory testi m ony that coul d sup port conf l i cti ng c oncl usi ons i s gi ven a t a be nch tri al , an appe l l ate court will no t dis t ur b t he t r ial c o ur t 's f ind ing s ba se d o n t ha t t es t imo ny u nle ss a c o nt r ar y find ing is c lea r ly apparent.” Chicago’s Pizza , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 859. Lawlor’s central conten

tion i n thi s regard is

that t he trial

court erred in

fi ndi ng an y b reach of fiduc iary du t y of loyalt y becau se she was an at -w ill employee wit hou t evidenc e t hat she violat ed a nonc omp et itio n agr eement or ot her re st rict ive co venant t hat wo uld p ro hibit t he dis cl osure of any

in form ation (save trade secrets) t o a pro spectiv e em ploy er. She further argues t hat t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat she br ou ght a single c lient fro m Nor t h American t o S hamro ck a nd that an y contacts rel

ated to attem

pti ng to do so we

re i n n o way i m proper. “To st at e a c aus e o f act ion fo r br eac h of fiduc iary du t y, a p laintiff must a llege and ulti ma tely prove (1) a fi

duci ary duty

on the part o f the [em

ploy ee], (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an i nj ury, an d (4) a proxim

ate cause between the b

reach an d the in jury.” Alpha School Bus Co. v.1-09-3603

36

Wagner , 391 Ill . App. 3d 722, 747 (2009). St ated broadly , Ill in ois recogni

zes that an em

ploy ee can be l iab le f or breach o f f

iduciary duty to her employer when she di scloses confi

dential busi ness i nf orma tion to a com peti tor whi l e sti l l em ploye d by her em ploye r. Veco Corp. v. Babcock , 243 Ill. App. 3d 15 3, 16 0 (19 93). Furt hermore, an employee who a tt empts t o so li cit her employer’s
cus tomer s f

or hers el f or a com peti ng e nti ty c an be i n b reach of he r f i duci ary duty to her em

ploye r. ABC Trans National Transportation, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forw arders, Inc. , 62 Ill . App. 3d 671, 683 (19 78) . How ever, “ ab sent f rau d, a con tractua l res tri cti ve coven an t, or the i m prop er ta ki ng of a customer lis

t, former em

ploy ees m ay compete wi

th their f ormer em ploy ers and sol

ic it f ormer cu st o mer s p r o vid ed t he r e w as no de mo nst r ab le b us ine ss ac t ivit y bef o r e t er minat io n o f t he ir
em ploy me nt.” Alpha School Bus , 39 1 Ill. App. 3d at 736 ; Cooper Linse Hallman Capital Management, Inc. v. Hallman , 36 8 I ll. A pp . 3d 35 3, 35 5- 56 ( 20 06 )
. “While an en fo r ce ab le
re st rict ive co venant may pro t ect mate rial which d oe s no t co nst itu t e a t ra de s ecr et , a n employer 's prote cti on a bs en t a re stri cti ve coven an t i s n arr owe r an d e xte nds on l y to trade s ec rets

[ci tati on] , or near-perm

anen t custo me r relati onshi

ps.” Cincinnati Tool Steel Co. v. Breed , 136 Ill . App. 3d 267, 27 4 (198 5). Based upon our revi ew of the record, the tr ia l c ourt ’s concl

usi on that Lawlor breach

ed her fiduciar y dut y of loyalt y to No rt h American mo st ly rest s up on ( 1) an unp ro ven as ser t ion t hat she
unsucces sf

ull y a tt em pted to steer the MapQuest busi ness from Nort h A me rican to Sham rock bef ore she m oved over to t hat compan y, an d (2) test im

ony tha t Lawlor’s l

etter to Chri stenesen contai ne d North A

merican ’sconf

i den tia l sal es a nd profi t in f orma tion
. Fi rst, on the subject of the alleged diversi on of busin

ess, there is no pro of that MapQ uest1-09-3603

37

or any other North Am

erica n cl ie nt followed Lawl

or t o Shamrock or that she cost her empl oyer t he lo ss o f an y bu sine ss wh at so ev er . T he o nly ev ide nc e t ha t t o uc he d o n bu sine ss div er sio n c ame in t he Br ist o w a ffida vit , wh ich wa s a dmis sible o nly fo rimpe ac hme nt pu r po se s. Ot he rt ha n t his aff ida vi t, No rth Am

erica n poin ts to testim

ony tha t Bristow call

ed Nort h A

me rican , volun teered i n f orm ati on ab out L awl or’ s b eh

av i or to P er ez

an d V an Pa ri s, an d s et u p a n appoi n tmen t wi th No r t h Ame r ica n t o fur t he rdis cu ss he rimpr o pe rac t io ns. No r t h Ame r ica n c laims t ha t as a r es ult of this, i t ini tiated t he noncompetition i nvestigation to det ermi

ne whether it was going to lose b us i n es s a s a re su l t of La wl or’ s a cti on s. Ul ti mate l y , of cou rs e, th e ev i den ce

re v ea l ed th at N orth Am erican di d not lose any

busi ness. Next, r egarding Lawl

or’s lett er to Chris

tensen, our reading of thi s document reveals a rather bland reci

tation of an at-will

em ploy ee’s b usi ness -gett in

g abi li ties an d an ef fort to ma rket he rs el f to a p oten

ti al em pl oyer. Other th

an Per ez ’s tes ti mony tha t he con si de red the i nf orm ati on in La wlo r ’s let t er t o be co nfid en t ial, t he r e w as no co mpe t en t ev ide nc e t ha t t he info r mat io n w as in fact conf ide ntial and n o evi dence that any

sort o f trade secret was di sclosed. See Veco , 24 3 I ll. App. 3d at 163 (holdi

ng that there was no breach of f iduc ia ry duti es where def

endan ts subm itted
no ev ide nc e t ha t ce r t ain do cu men t s w er e c o nfid en t ial)
. Fu r t he rmo r e, at o r al a r gu men t be fo r e t his court , counsel

for North Ame

rican conceded that the documen t in ques tion was “

not, in an y l egal
sens e, confi

dentia l.” L awl or also poin

ts to the le

tt er from Nort h A

me rican ’s ch ie f f in anci al officer , E gan, which co nt ained d et ailed infor matio n re gar ding sp ecific pr ofit marg ins, co st s, a nd pr icing figu r es o n a pe rcu st o mer ba sis
. T he mat er ial w as se nt t o bo lst er No r t h Ame r ica n’s cla im1-09-3603

38

tha t La wl or owe d i t $20 ,00 0, b

ut de f en da nt d i d n ot i n a ny wa y i nd i ca te that the i

nf orm ati on contai ne d i n the lengthy

docum en t was c onf

i den tia l
. Co nt r ar y t o t he t en o ro f so me o f t he ar gu men t s p r es en t ed by N o r t h Ame r ica n o n a pp ea l, t he ju ry a nd t ria l jud ge hea rd no evid enc e t hat La wlo r w as su bjec t t o any fo rm o f a
nonc omp et itio n agr eement or any so rt of a re st rict ive co venant t hat wo uld p ro hibit any o f the
ac t ivit ies t ha t fo r m t he gr av ame n o f it s br ea ch o f lo yalt y co un t er cla im. D efe nd an t s p o int ed ly did not include t he no nco mpet itio n agr eement in the p leading o f its co unt er claim that ser ved a s t he
ve hi cl e f or th e tri al cou rt’ s v erd i cts . A s m

en ti one d e arl

y i n th i s op i ni on, North A meri ca n d i d n ot attem pt i n a ny way to util ize i ts non com peti tion agree men t at tria l
. North A meri ca n h asnot c i ted , an d our res ea rch ed has n ot di sc l ose d, a

ny Il l i noi s dec i si on wher e an a t -w ill

employee was held liable for bre aching t he du t y of loyalt y for d isclos ing i nf orma tion unl ess the i nf orma tion wasuse d to comp ete aga i nst the em

ploye r prior to termi

na tion
. I nd ee d, t he t r ial c o ur t ’s memo r an du m o n t his is su e s imilar ly did no t cit e a ca se t ha t wa s fa ct ua lly
o r le ga lly on p o int . I t s c it at io n o f ABC Trans National Transport, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forw arders, Inc. , 90 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 81 7, 825 ( 1980) , Veco , and Corroon & Black of Illinois, I

nc. v. Magner , 14 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 15 1 ( 19 86 ) , is ina pp o sit e b ec au se t he y ar e fa ct ua lly and leg ally di sti ngu i shab l e f rom th e pres en t di spute. In ABC Trans National , t he d efe nda nt s w er e k ey man ag eme nt emp lo yee s o f t he p laint iff
cor por ation who act ivel

y promot ed t he in

ter ests o f a competing firm and diverted plain

tiff ’s pers onnel and customer s to the c omp eti ng f i rm whi l e sti l l em ploye d at the

pl ai ntif f corporation.1-09-3603

39

ABC Trans National , 9 0 I ll. App. 3d a t 825 . Mo re t han half of p laintiff’s business was lost t o t he
com peti ng f i rm i m medi atel y there af ter. ABC Trans National , 9 0 I ll. App. 3d a t 820 . T he ap pe llat e c o ur t fo un d t he de fen da nt s br ea ch ed t he ir d ut y o f lo yalt y, p er su ad ed by t he “p o t en t ially
cri pp l i n g l oss of h al f of i ts b us i n es s a n d m aj or cus tom

er s, as we l l as su b sta n ti al n um b er s of i ts per so nnel” ca use d be t he “de fendant s’ we ll-or ganize d plan a nd t heir co nduc t in furt her ance of t he pla n be fore they

departed from [the pl

ai ntif f corporation].” ABC Trans National , 90 Ill . App. 3d at 8 25. Aga in, defendant cannot point t o t he loss of a single acco unt as a result o f Lawlor’s cond uct. Simil ar ly, in Veco , t he d efe nda nt s w er e bo t h hig h- ra nkin g o fficer s o f t he p laint iff corporati on. Veco , 243 Ill . App. 3d at 155. It was undisputed that o ne of the de fen dants soli ci ted bus i ne ss f or hi s newl

y f orme d corporati

on wh i l e sti l l em ploye d at the

pl ai ntif f corporation. Veco , 243 Ill . App. 3d at 161. Because the def endan ts were offi

cers, the appella

te court found that they br ea ch ed t he ir fid uc iar y du t y by ac t ive ly exp lo it ing “t he ir fid uc iar y po sit io ns t o en ha nc e t he ir in div idua l i nterests at t he ex

pense of their em ploy er.” Veco , 24 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 16 2. T hu s, in bot h ABC Trans

National and Veco , the def en da n ts wer e n ot m er e em pl oy ee s, b ut w er e c orp ora

te off ic ers who owed a hei

ghtened f iduc ia ry duty to their em

ploy er. See Veco , 243 Ill . App. 3d at 160-61 (corpo rate offi

cers owe a fi

duci ary duty

of loyal ty to t hei r corpo rate empl

oyer not to (1) activel y e xpl oit their posi

tions wi thin the corpor ation f

or t hei r own personal

ben efi t, o r (2) hin

der the a bi l i ty of a corporati

on to conti

nue the b usi ne ss f or whi ch i t was dev eloped). Finally , in Corroon &

Black , t he ap pellat e co ur t re ver sed t he t rial co ur t ’s o rd er gr ant ing1-09-3603

40

th e def en da n ts’ moti on

f or sum mar y j udgm en t b ec au se th er e w as

som e ev i den ce

wh i ch ten de d to sho w t ha t t he de fen da nt s c au se d t he pla int iff co r po r at io n t o lo se an ac co un t wh ile s t ill in pl ai ntif f ’sem ploy. Corroon &

Black , 14 5 I ll. A pp . 3d at 16 1. Also , t he de fen da nt - emp lo yee in t hat cas e signe d t he co rp or at ion’s s t anda rd employment agr eement co nt aining a r est rict ive
cove na nt. Corroon &

Black , 145 Ill . App. 3d at 157. In su m, t her e wa s no pr oo f of diver t ing busines s while Law lor was at No rt h American a nd no p ro of t hat any was d ivert ed o nce s he go t t o S hamro ck. Simil ar ly, the re was simply

no evidenc e ad mitt ed o f any cont ra ct ually im po sed dut y on La wlor ’s pa rt t o r efra in from disc losing any sal es or pro fi

t information t o any compet itor s at a ny tim e. As a re sult, t he tr ial

cou rt ’s judgm ents in North Ameri

can’s f avor were ag ainst t he m

ani fest weigh

t o f the evi

dence and m

ust be vacated. As a fi nal m att er, Lawlor co ntends t hat t he tr ial cou rt erre d in granting Nor th American’s motion f or a directed verdict on her procuring caus e clai m. In c ount II o f L awl or’s third am ended compl ai nt, she al le ged she was enti

tled to commi

ssions rel ating to sal es m

ade to MapQuest, FTD, Pl i an t, a n d K om ats u u n der the p rocuri

n g c au se doc tri n e. The tr

i al cou rt gra n ted Nor th American’ s mot ion fo r d irect ed ve rd ict o n t his claim and lim ited Law lor t o p ro cee ding o n a bre ach o f co nt ra ct claim for c omp ensa t ion ea rne d pr ior t o t he end of he r e mployment . “U nder t he proc uri ng -ca us e ru l e, a pa rty may be en ti tl ed to com m i ss i ons on s al esmad e a f

ter th e term i na ti on of a contract if

that part y procured the sal es through i

ts activi ties pri or t o t ermi

nation.” Scheduli ng Corp . of America v. Mas sello , 151 I ll . App. 3d 56 5, 568 ( 1987). “The rule appl ies,1-09-3603

41

however, onl

y i f the contract does not expressl y provi de when comm is si ons will

be pai d.” Scheduling Corp. , 151 Ill . App. 3d at 568. As previ ously me ntioned, we appl

y the de novo stan dard i n re vi ewi ng th e ci rcui t court’s d

en i al of a di rected verdict. Lawlor t estif

ed that in June 2005, sh

e recei ved a sal es compen

sation polic

y b efore her departure from North Am erica n. The com

pensation policy

provided, i

n pertin ent part, t hat sales em pl oy ee s woul d n ot re ce i v e c om m i ss i on af ter th ei r te rm i n ati on da te. La wl or al so t esti f

ed to signing a “t ru e- up” agr eement in 200 2, meaning if her d ra w wa s gr eat er t han t he co mmi ssio ns she h ad ea rned f or th e y ea r i n wh i ch sh e l ef t th e c om pa n y , s h e w oul

d h av e to p ay th e d i f f er en ce to No rt h American w hen she left. This ag re ement was silent a s t o w het her Law lor co uld r ece ive addi tional comm is si ons af ter she l eft. Fi

nal ly , Lawl or was aware of North Ame rican ’s longst an di ng po licy t ha t emp lo yee s w er e n o t en t it led t o co mmiss io ns af t er t he y lef

t t he co mp an y. Lawlor stat ed that she was en titled to a 30% comm

is si on on al l K

omatsu sal

es af ter her colleague Hall l eft the compa

ny, whom sh

e previ ously split the comm

is si on with. In l

igh t o f this evi

dence,
we con cl ud e th at th er e w as an ag re em en t i n pl ac e a t th e ti me of La wl or’ s s ep arati

on f rom Nor th Am erican that ex pres sl y provi ded w hen c omm

i ssi ons woul d be

pai d. A ccordi

ngl y , the tri al court did no t er rin g r an t ing No r t h Ame r ica n’s dir ec t ed ve r dic t o n La wlo r ’s pr o cu r ing ca us e c laim. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e affirm the t rial co ur t wit h re spe ct t o t he ver dict s re ceived by Lawlor and reinstat e the jury’ s origin al award of $1.75 mill

ion i n puni tive dam ages. We reverse the ci rcuit court’s judgm

ent agai nst Lawl or o n North Am

erica n’s counterclai

m regardi ng an1-09-3603

42

al l eg ed b re ach of f i du ci ar y du ty an d vac ate th e c om pen sa tory an d p un i ti v e dam ag es aw arde d to No rt h American in t hat claim. We affirm t he t rial co ur t ’s dir ect ed ve rd ict o n Law lor ’s pr oc ur ing
ca us e c laim. A f f i rm ed i n pa rt a n d r ev er se d i n pa rt.