Opinion ID: 1609395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the award of punitive damages was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence

Text: Sessums next asserts that the award of $100,000.00 is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the issue should not have been presented to the jury. Assuming arguendo that punitive damages were appropriate, Sessums further contends that the amount was unreasonable in light of its relationship to the actual damages recovered and his net worth. We have held that `[a] plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages only if he has demonstrated a willful or malicious wrong or the gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others.' Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Strickland, 620 So.2d 535, 540 (Miss. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 635, 126 L.Ed.2d 593 (1993), quoting Strickland v. Rossini, 589 So.2d 1268, 1273 (Miss. 1991). Punitive damages are to be assessed only in extreme cases, and since they are intended as an example and warning to others, `they should be allowed only with caution and within narrow limits.' Beta Beta Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity v. May, 611 So.2d 889, 894 (Miss. 1992), quoting Consolidated Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Toche, 410 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Miss. 1982); Snow Lake Shores Property Owners Corp. v. Smith, 610 So.2d 357, 362 (Miss. 1992). Reviewing the record, it is apparent that the odometer on the limousine was rolled back in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 63-7-203(3) (1989) in a successful attempt to defraud future purchasers. The jury found that Sessums was responsible for that action. In this case, there was more than the simple act of rolling back the odometer. Over a period of more than a year and through a series of transactions, a pattern of misrepresentations emerged regarding both the mileage and ownership of the vehicle. From the evidence, it appears that Sessums took advantage of Hall's lack of familiarity with local motor vehicle registration procedures and provided him with a title transfer form to fill out where the odometer reading had been left blank after Hall turned the limousine over to him on consignment. The record further indicates that Sessums misrepresented to two subsequent purchasers, Day and Pack, that the limousine was a low-mileage vehicle previously owned by a prominent Jackson oilman. Both Day and Pack relied on Sessums' representations in purchasing the vehicle, and Sessums profited from those transactions. Finally, even after suit had been filed, the record indicates that Sessums threatened Pack with further litigation to induce him to sign a sworn statement containing a version of the sale Pack testified was false. It is just this sort of callous and reckless disregard for the rights of others that our system of punitive damages is intended to punish. As to Sessums' claim that the amount of damages awarded was unreasonable in light of the actual damages as well as his net worth, we have held that no hard and fast rule exists for measuring the maximum award than may be made in any particular case. Strickland, 620 So.2d at 540; Andrew Jackson Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 566 So.2d 1172 (Miss. 1990). To the contrary, we consider a variety of factors, which, set in the insurance context, we enumerated in Strickland as follows: First, the amount awarded should serve to punish the insurer and to deter it from committing similar offenses in the future. Second, the amount should serve as an example set to deter others from committing similar offenses. Third the amount awarded should account for the insurer's pecuniary ability and financial worth. And fourth, the amount constitutes compensation for the plaintiff in his or her public service in bringing the action. 620 So.2d at 541. On appeal, the jury's award of punitive damages will be reversed only where it is so excessive that it evinces passion, bias and prejudice on the part of the jury so as to shock the conscience of the court. Id.; Williams, 566 So.2d at 1190. Given the facts of this case and the need to deter Sessums and others from engaging in a similar course of conduct in the future, we cannot say the jury's award of $100,000.00 in punitive damages was excessive. Further, we have held that where punitive damages are proper, attorney fees may be awarded. Strickland, 620 So.2d at 542. Therefore, Sessums cannot complain about the award of attorney fees to Northtown.