Opinion ID: 156355
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Presentation of Tort Damages

Text: 25 Next, Conoco contends that Okland submitted evidence only of contract damages and that it did not present evidence of actual damages resulting from Conoco's tortious actions. Therefore, argues Conoco, the jury could not have awarded tort damages, leaving no basis for the award of punitive damages. Although Conoco objected generally to the submission of punitive damages, it did not make this argument to the district court. Our review is for plain error only. 26 Okland presented evidence of actual damages by listing the damages incurred under each of the contracts. See Appellant's App. Vol. I at 370-74, Vol. II at 390, 660-61. Conoco contends that this categorization of the damages shows that only damages for breach of contract were awarded. While Okland did not specifically allocate portions of its actual damage claim to tort and to breach of contract, it did separate out those damages that were recoverable from 1985 to 1990 and those that were recoverable beginning in December 1990. 8 Appellee's Supplemental App. at 104-06. The former damages were recoverable only under a tort theory because the Oklahoma statute of limitations for recovery of a breach of contract is five years. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95, tit. 12A, § 2-725. Actions for fraud, on the other hand, may be brought within two years after the discovery of the fraud. Id. The court's instructions informed the jury of these statutes. Appellant's App. Vol. I at 172-75. Thus, the jury could not have awarded the amount it did under a pure breach of contract theory, but it could have and did on the tort theories. 9 27 The fact that Okland organized its damages by contract does not mean that the jury was prevented from looking to them as a measure for awarding damages in tort. In John A. Henry & Co. v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co., 941 F.2d 1068, 1072 (10th Cir.1991), we rejected a similar argument because the characterization of the damages was properly offered as proof of damages for both claims. Id. (emphasis added). 28 The measure of damages for tort is the amount which will compensate for all detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 61; see also Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 2. Detriment is defined in Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 4, as a loss or harm suffered in person or property. Specifically, Oklahoma allows one who is fraudulently induced to enter a contract to recover up to the amount fraudulently misrepresented. LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc., 708 P.2d 1068, 1077 (Okla.1985). This calculation is the difference between the actual value received and the value the defrauded party would have had if it had been as represented. Id.; see also Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp., 700 P.2d 1023, 1026-27 (Okla.Ct.App.1983); Barnes v. McKinney, 589 P.2d 698, 701-02 (Okla.Ct.App.1978). In addition, the jury may award prejudgment interest on top of the principal amount in order to compensate for the detriment caused by the deprivation of the money. See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, §§ 5-7, 61, tit. 52, § 570.10; Sisney v. Smalley, 690 P.2d 1048, 1050-51 (Okla.1984); Barnes, 589 P.2d at 701; see also Investors Preferred Life Ins. Co. v. Abraham, 375 F.2d 291, 295-96 (10th Cir.1967). See generally U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223, 1256-58 (10th Cir.1988) (Under federal law, the rationale underlying an award of prejudgment interest is to compensate the wronged party for being deprived of the monetary value of his loss from the time of the loss to the payment of judgment.), implied overruling on other grounds recognized by, Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d 1215, 1231 (10th Cir.1996). 29 Here, the fraudulent misrepresentation concerned the PRC exclusion under the contract. We see no reason why the fraudulent inducement and deceit damages presented by Okland cannot be calculated based on the amount Conoco fraudulently misrepresented that Okland would receive under the contract, i.e., the resale price with no PRC exclusion, plus the detriment suffered by Okland from loss of use of the money. 30 Furthermore, as stated above, a portion of the damages here was recoverable only in an action for tort, and Okland presented those damages to the jury. The jury found Conoco liable for tort and awarded damages therefor. 31 Finally, in Instruction No. 11, Appellant's App. Vol. I at 147, the jury was instructed that its award for breach of contract and fraud or deceit could not amount to a double recovery; so its damage award was necessarily tied to the loss Okland suffered under its contracts by virtue of Conoco's underpayment. The jury appropriately awarded actual damages that totaled only the actual damages Okland suffered under all theories of liability. Because the jury awarded actual damages for tort, it was not error for the district court to allow the jury to consider punitive damages. 32