Opinion ID: 3214105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: trebling

Text: Appellants contend the trial court erred in trebling damages because the WMA limits Maybank's recovery of statutory treble damages under the UTPA, and their alleged conduct did not constitute willful or knowing violations of the UTPA. Appellants further argue there is no evidence they knew or should have known their conduct violated the UTPA. We disagree. The UTPA provides for treble damages upon a finding of a willful violation of the Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a) (Supp. 2014). A willful violation is defined by statute as occurring when the party committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation of [the UTPA]. S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(d). Thus, if a person of ordinary prudence who was engaged in trade or commerce could have ascertained that his conduct violated the UTPA, such conduct is willful within the meaning of the statute. Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 23–24, 640 S.E.2d 486, 498 (Ct. App. 2006). 17 Similarly, we decline to hold that the clause is unenforceable based on of the jury's verdict for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. As with constructive fraud, no specific intent to deceive is necessary to support either verdict. We again note limitation of liability provisions and exculpatory clause are disfavored and will be strictly construed against the drafter. Pride, 244 S.C. at 619, 138 S.E.2d at 157. Here, the exculpatory clause prohibits incidental, indirect, special, consequential or punitive damages, but does not specifically prohibit statutory or multiple damages. Appellants failed to explicitly limit statutory or multiple damages when they drafted the WMA, and we decline to extend its terms to prohibit the statutory treble damages awarded to Maybank under the UTPA. Cf. Simpson, 373 S.C. at 29–30, 644 S.E.2d at 671 (finding an arbitration agreement unconscionable when it purported to restrict a consumer from receiving the statutorily-mandated treble damages to which she might otherwise have been entitled in her underlying UPTA claim, because courts will not enforce a contract which is violative of public policy, statutory law, or provisions of the Constitution (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). We find the evidence in the record supports the trial court's decision to treble damages. As previously discussed, the trial court found Appellants violated the UTPA based on the WMA, the Approval Letter, and the Refund Letter. We find this conclusion is clearly supported by the record. For example, numerous witnesses testified Appellants knew they could not fulfill the terms of the WMA. Further, the Refund Letter was portrayed to the jury as being disingenuous in its stated laudatory purpose, and the Approval Letter, though seemingly tailored specifically to Maybank, was a mere fill-in-the-blank form letter. Therefore, we find evidence exists to uphold the trial court's decision to treble the damages under the UTPA.