Opinion ID: 1244591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fraudulent MisrepresentationPunitive Damages.

Text: In her petition Lara alleged that Thomas committed three forms of fraudulent misrepresentation. The jury found for Lara on two of them and for Thomas on the third. First, she asserted Thomas intentionally misrepresented his obligations to comply with the minimum wage and overtime laws. Second, Lara asserted she was promised continued employment and would not be discharged without good cause. The jury found for Lara and awarded compensatory damages for misrepresentation of wages and continued employment. The jury also awarded $7,500 in punitive damages. Following consideration of the posttrial motions, the court set aside the $6,500 compensatory damage award because it was duplicative of the tortious discharge award, but affirmed the punitive award on the misrepresentation claims.
Thomas first argues the court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury. Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Thomas' actions amounted to a willful and wanton disregard for Lara's rights. See Iowa Code § 668A.1. Thomas further argues the awards of punitive damages were excessive and that they were the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury because the jury received evidence of his personal worth. We disagree. Evidence of a defendant's financial worth is one relevant factor for the jury to consider when setting a punitive damage award. See Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 510 N.W.2d 854, 867 (Iowa 1994); Nassen v. National States Ins. Co., 494 N.W.2d 231, 238-39 (Iowa 1992), cert. denied,  U.S. , 113 S.Ct. 1846, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993). We find the punitive damages on the claims of misrepresentation are not so excessive that they demonstrate passion and prejudice. Ryan v. Arneson, 422 N.W.2d 491, 495-96 (Iowa 1988).
Lara argues that the award for actual damages for her claims based on misrepresentation was not duplicative of the tortious discharge award because they represented separate calculations for consecutive periods of time. Thomas urges the court correctly set aside the jury's award because the same theory of damages was argued in support of both theories of recovery. The purpose of compensatory damages is to return an injured party to the party's original position. Team Central, Inc. v. Teamco, Inc., 271 N.W.2d 914, 925 (Iowa 1978). We have held that duplicate recovery or overlapping damages are to be avoided. Nassen, 494 N.W.2d at 236-37 (Iowa 1992); Preferred Marketing v. Hawkeye Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 452 N.W.2d 389, 396 (Iowa 1990). Lara sought damages on theories of tortious discharge in violation of public policy and for misrepresentation that she would not be discharged without good cause. Though she raised claims under different theories of liability, we believe the damages flowed from essentially a single action. To allow recovery on both theories would result in double recovery for the same consequences. Thus, we affirm the court's order to set aside the award of $6,500 on the misrepresentation of continued employment claim. Thomas further urges that if the compensatory awards are duplicative on these claims, the court should have likewise found the punitive damage awards duplicative. Because the punitive award was set aside on the tortious discharge claim, there was no double recovery of punitive damages for Thomas' tortious misrepresentation.
Lara's third claim of misrepresentation alleged Thomas unconditionally agreed to double her wages and provide her with benefits effective January 1, 1990. The jury answered special verdicts on this issue determining that a contract supported by consideration existed between the parties, but that the defendant was excused from performance of the contract. Lara urges the jury's special verdicts are inconsistent. An inconsistency between a special finding and a general verdict, however, is not problematic unless the conflict is irreconcilable. Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 761 (Iowa 1974). We find the jury's answers to the special verdicts consistent with the evidence. At trial the defense argued that any agreement for an increase in Lara's compensation was conditioned on a merger between Thomas and another veterinarian. The merger did not occur. On cross-examination Lara conceded Thomas discussed such a merger, but testified that she did not interpret his promise of job security and higher compensation as contingent on the proposed merger. We conclude there was substantial evidence from which a jury could find Thomas did not misrepresent or breach this agreement.