Opinion ID: 1171472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: other issues raised by bohna

Text: Bohna argues that the trial court prejudiced his claim for punitive damages [38] by granting partial summary judgment to HT on the issue of fiduciary fraud. The trial court ruled that Bohna's complaint failed to allege fiduciary fraud with the specificity required by Civil Rule 9(b). [39] Further, Bohna argues that his subsequent request to amend his complaint to more specifically allege a claim for fiduciary fraud was erroneously denied. The jury concluded that punitive damages against HT were not otherwise appropriate in this case. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Bohna probably suffered no prejudice because of the trial court's rulings concerning his fiduciary fraud punitive damages claim. The trial court instructed the jury that punitive damages could be awarded if it found HT's conduct to be outrageous because of [HT's] evil motives toward the plaintiff or its reckless indifference to his rights. Bohna was permitted to present evidence relating to an attorney's fiduciary duties to his client. At final argument he urged the jury to make an award of punitive damages against HT because HT had been loyal to Allstate at Bohna's expense and thus was recklessly indifferent to his rights. We conclude therefore that even if the trial court erred in its rulings concerning Bohna's claim for fiduciary fraud, such error was harmless.