Court Opinion

ID: 9409760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 14:07:43.517308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.160862
License: Public Domain

[J-59A-2022 and J-59B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.]
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                            WESTERN DISTRICT

THE BERT COMPANY D/B/A                  :   No. 13 WAP 2022
NORTHWEST INSURANCE SERVICES            :
                                        :   Appeal from the Order of the
                                        :   Superior Court entered May 5, 2021
          v.                            :   at No. 817 WDA 2019, affirming the
                                        :   Judgment of the Court of Common
                                        :   Pleas of Warren/Forest County
MATTHEW TURK, WILLIAMS COLLINS,         :   entered June 3, 2019 at No. AD 260
JAMIE HEYNES, DAVID MCDONNELL,          :   of 2017
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY,        :
LLC, FIRST NATIONAL BANK, AND FNB       :   ARGUED: October 25, 2022
CORPORATION                             :
                                        :
                                        :
APPEAL OF: MATTHEW TURK, FIRST          :
NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC,         :
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, AND FNB            :
CORPORATION                             :

THE BERT COMPANY D/B/A                  :   No. 14 WAP 2022
NORTHWEST INSURANCE SERVICES            :
                                        :   Appeal from the Order of the
                                        :   Superior Court entered May 5, 2021
          v.                            :   at No. 975 WDA 2019, dismissing as
                                        :   moot the cross-appeal from the
                                        :   Judgment of the Court of Common
MATTHEW TURK, WILLIAM COLLINS,          :   Pleas of Warren/Forest County
JAIME HEYNES, DAVID MCDONNEL,           :   entered June 3, 2019 at No. AD 260
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY,        :   of 2017
LLC, FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND FNB        :
CORPORATION                             :   ARGUED: October 25, 2022
                                        :
                                        :
MATTHEW TURK                            :
                                        :
                                        :
          v.                            :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 THE BERT COMPANY, NORTHWEST                      :
 BANK, AND NORTHWEST                              :
 BANCSHARES, INC.                                 :
                                                  :
 APPEAL OF: MATTHEW TURK, FIRST                   :
 NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC,                  :
 FIRST NATIONAL BANK, AND FNB                     :
 CORPORATION                                      :

                                CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY                                               DECIDED: JULY 19, 2023
       I join the majority’s well-reasoned opinion in full.     I write separately only to

emphasize that courts may ordinarily consider a defendant’s wealth when evaluating

whether a punitive damages award is excessive. See Restatement (Second) of Torts

§908(2) (1979) (“In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider

the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that

the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.”)

(emphasis added); and Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 747 (Pa. 1984) (adopting

§908(2)). See also Majority Opinion at 25. A defendant’s wealth is “relevant, since the

purposes of exemplary damages are to punish for a past event and to prevent future

offenses, and the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is to

some extent in proportion to the means of the guilty person.” Restatement (Second) of

Torts §908(2) cmt. e.

       In my view, it is simple common sense that “if a wealthy person commits a rather

heinous act, nominal punitive damages will not deter either that person or any other

similarly situated person from committing a similar act. . . . If the resulting punishment is

relatively small when compared to the potential reward of his actions, it might then be

feasible for a tortfeasor to attempt the same outrageous conduct a second time.”

Kirkbride v. Libson Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800, 802-03 (Pa. 1989). Stated differently,

                          [J-59A-B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 2
if a wealthy defendant can absorb a punitive damages award without suffering financial

discomfort, the deterrent purpose of the award is undermined. After all, how can punitive

damages possibly deter future wrongdoing if a massive award represents a mere fraction

of the defendant’s actual worth? A company which generates millions of dollars every

year can comfortably pay hundreds of thousands of dollars assessed against it – even if

the same figure would be unreasonably high when levied against the average person.

Because such damages are intended to inflict financial “pain” as punishment, and thus

deter similar future conduct, the wealthier the defendant, the larger the monetary loss

required to have that deterrent effect.

       It is true the “wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional

punitive damages award.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408,

427 (2003). Although evidence of great wealth may “provide[] an open-ended basis for

inflating awards . . . [t]hat does not make its use unlawful or inappropriate; it simply means

that this factor cannot make up for the failure of other factors, such as ‘reprehensibility,’

to constrain significantly an award that purports to punish a defendant’s conduct.” BMW

of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 591 (1996) (Breyer, J., concurring). The

jury’s award in the present case reflected the reprehensibility of the defendants’ conduct

in engaging in a brazen conspiracy “to steal a corporation,” and consideration of their

wealth in assessing the award’s excessiveness is proper.

                           [J-59A-B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 3