Opinion ID: 1127718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: duplicative awards

Text: The jury found Lichfield jointly and severally liable with Rasmussen and Zephor in the amount of $50,000 for recklessly or intentionally violating the Act. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22(1)(b), the court awarded an amount equal to three times the consideration paid for the securit[ies] ... upon a showing that the violation was reckless or intentional. Id. The jury also awarded $50,000 in punitive damages. Lichfield argues that the punitive and treble damages awards are improperly duplicative because both are based on the same conduct. We agree. The trial court characterized the treble damages as a statutory penalty assessed as a result of the reckless and intentional violations of the Act, and said that punitive damages are punishment for defendant's malicious actions. Lichfield's conduct is easily classified as malicious, reckless, and intentional. Nevertheless, in Alta Industries Ltd. v. Hurst, 846 P.2d 1282, 1292 (Utah 1993), we held that a statutory penalty and an award of punitive damages were duplicative because they were based on the same set of facts. As a consequence, we vacated and set aside one of the awards. In this case, Lichfield's reckless and intentional acts in violation of the Act were the same malicious acts for which the jury awarded punitive damages. However wrongful his actions, Lichfield followed only one course of conduct. That this conduct persisted over time does not create two sets of facts for which he should be punished twice. The treble damages awarded under the Act are punitive in nature. One of the awards must be vacated. As to which award should be vacated, the prevailing party must be allowed to choose between the duplicative awards. Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006, 1012 (1990); see Bill Terry's, Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales, Inc., 409 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). Generally, it can be assumed that the prevailing party will elect the greater punitive award. In this case, Steenblik has elected to receive the $150,000 treble damages award under the Act. Thus, the jury verdict for $50,000 in punitive damages is vacated. The award of treble damages under the Act is affirmed. [7] One other damage issue must be addressed. The trial court awarded more damages than the Act authorized. The jury found that Rasmussen and Zephor were liable for all $150,000 of Steenblik's losses. It also found that Lichfield was jointly and severally liable for $50,000 of the $150,000. Pursuant to the Act the trial court trebled the award against Rasmussen and Zephor to $450,000 and against Lichfield to $150,000. As to Lichfield, the trial court ruled that because $100,000 of the $150,000 in treble damages is a statutory penalty assessed as a result of the reckless and intentional violations of the Act ... these damages are not [subject to] joint liability with any other defendant. Thus, $100,000 of Lichfield's liability under the Act is additional to the $450,000 assessed under the Act against Rasmussen and Zephor. This awards Steenblik more than the Act authorizes. However, if the entire $150,000 of Lichfield's liability were joint and several with Rasmussen and Zephor, then Steenblik could be compensated for a total of only $450,000. Thus, Lichfield's liability must be joint and several with Rasmussen and Zephor.