Opinion ID: 2767481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: cross error

Text: In their assignments of cross-error, Buki and Marsho take issue with the trial court’s refusal to multiply the consequential damages under the VCPA and its denial of punitive damages. With regard to their VCPA claim, Buki and Marsho contend that the trial court erred in determining that consequential damages were not a form of loss that could be doubled under the VCPA. However, in light of our above decision reversing the award of consequential damages, this issue is moot. Buki and Marsho next argue that the trial court erred in failing to award punitive damages after it struck their VCPA claim. According to Buki and Marsho, “it was clear error for the trial court to fail to impose equivalent damages on [Donald] as punitive damages.” We disagree. “A punitive damages award is generally left to the [factfinder’s] discretion because there is no set standard for determining the amount of punitive damages.” Coalson v. Canchola, 287 Va. 242, 249, 754 S.E.2d 525, 528 (2014). As such an award is entirely discretionary, Buki and Marsho are required to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award punitive damages. Here, Buki and Marsho fail to raise any argument indicating that such an abuse of discretion 23 occurred. Accordingly, we will not reverse the decision of the trial court on this issue.