Court Opinion

ID: 9848550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:22:12.968648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:23.544696
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In my opinion, the majority misinterprets both Security Life Ins. *49Co. v. Clark, 229 Ga. App. 593 (494 SE2d 388) (1997) (Security I) and Clark v. Security Life Ins. Co., 270 Ga. 165 (509 SE2d 602) (1998) (Security II), then applies the principle of the law of the case selectively and, based upon this faulty analysis, finds substantive error in the Court of Appeals’ decision in Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 239 Ga. App. 690 (521 SE2d 434) (1999) (Security III). I believe that the Court of Appeals correctly construed our holding in Security II, and erred procedurally only by declining to consider Security’s remaining enumerations of error prior to affirming the judgment of the trial court.
The majority concludes that “there is no overlap between the RICO proximate cause issue and the vicarious liability issue. . . .” Clearly, however, this Court’s opinion in Security II established that, “[a]t trial, the Clarks contended that Security Life was vicariously liable under RICO for the forgery of its agent Fipps,” and that, applying the appropriate criminal standard, “the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of vicarious liability to the jury.” (Emphasis supplied.) Security II, supra at 167, 168 (2). Therefore, under the law of the case, vicarious liability under RICO was an issue at trial which was properly submitted to the jury. Clearly, the trial court would not have even been authorized to submit this issue to the jury if there was not sufficient evidence of proximate cause. Thus, the claim of Security’s vicarious liability under RICO was still viable upon return of the case to the Court of Appeals.
The majority ignores the principle of the law of the case by stating that the only basis for Security’s vicarious liability was not an element of the alleged RICO scheme, and bolsters its disregard by asserting that the jury was asked to name those persons who had participated in the RICO scheme and that the jury responded with a list of 28 names that did not include Fipps. To the contrary, the jury was not asked to name the participants in the alleged scheme. The special verdict form listed 28 entities without including Fipps and requested the jury to mark those with whom it believed Security conspired to violate the RICO law. (Exhibit 1 to Appellee’s brief) The jury was never asked whether Security conspired with Fipps, because there was no evidence thereof. Rather, the issue was Security’s vicarious liability for Fipps’ acts, and not the existence of an actual conspiracy between the two. Furthermore, the majority is obviously incorrect when it states that the only RICO allegations against Security referred to in the verdict form related to selling a defective insurance policy which did not comply with state regulations. In another portion of the special verdict form, the jury found that Security committed the RICO predicate offenses of theft by taking, theft by deception, forgery in the first degree, false statements, peijury, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Regardless of the absence of evidence that *50Security directly committed all or even most of these offenses, the evidence and the stipulations of the parties did show that Fipps, over the course of several months, committed several thefts, forgeries, acts of mail or wire fraud, false statements, and perjuries with respect to Appellees and at least two other couples. Thus, construing the verdict so as to uphold it requires the conclusion that the jury found Security to be vicariously liable for these offenses and that each one is a predicate offense under RICO. See Brown v. Techdata Corp., 238 Ga. 622, 630 (234 SE2d 787) (1977).
The majority further ignores the law of the case by relying upon evidence that Fipps acted alone when he forged the policy. Moreover, that evidence is irrelevánt to the issue of Security’s vicarious liability. By definition, vicarious liability arises where the agent is the sole actor, yet the prinicipal is liable “for acts not committed by him, not accomplished at his direction, not aided by his participation, and not done with his knowledge.” Davis v. City of Peachtree City, 251 Ga. 219, 220 (1) & fn. 1 (304 SE2d 701) (1983). The evidence shows, as the jury found, that Security was vicariously liable for Fipps’ commission of several interrelated predicate acts under RICO. See Willis v. First Data Pos, 245 Ga. App. 121, 126 (3) (b) (536 SE2d 198) (2000); Rains v. Dolphin Mortgage Corp., 241 Ga. App. 611, 615 (5) (525 SE2d 370) (1999). Compare Stargate Software Intl. v. Rumph, 224 Ga. App. 873, 877 (3) (482 SE2d 498) (1997). Additionally, the evidentiary basis for the vicarious liability claim is, under the law of the case, Security’s reckless toleration of Fipps’ forgery. Security II, supra at 168 (2). Reckless toleration of the forgery of an insurance policy and a fraudulent scheme to sell the very same policy without complying with insurance regulations have similar intents and results and an identical victim, and are surely interrelated predicate acts. OCGA § 16-14-3 (8). The law of the case has correctly established that the requisite injury under RICO need only flow from one of the interrelated predicate acts. Security I, supra at 601 (1) (c). There is absolutely no doubt that Fipps’ forgery proximately caused Appellees’ injury. Division 1 (c) of Security I held only that any insurance fraud scheme directly undertaken by Security was not itself the proximate cause. This Court left open the possibility that Appellees could establish “a RICO claim through proof of an insurance fraud scheme if that scheme as a whole meets the definition of racketeering activity under OCGA § 16-14-3 (9).” Security II, supra at 168 (3). Since the interrelated forgery furnished proximate cause, both the evidence in the trial court and this Court’s opinion compel the conclusion that the jury was authorized to find that Security was vicariously liable under RICO.
The judgment of this Court confirms this analysis. We found error in the Court of Appeals’ opinion only on the issues of judicial *51notice and vicarious liability. The error regarding judicial notice did not require the Court of Appeals’ judgment to be altered, because the alternative holding of Division 1 (c) of Security I remained viable so as to eliminate the claim of direct liability under RICO based upon those acts which were the object of the attempted judicial notice. If this Court had concluded that the claim of vicarious liability under RICO also was not viable on remand, then it would have wholly affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The only possible reason that this Court partially reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals is that the vicarious liability claim was still viable. Once again, the law of the case contradicts the analysis of the majority opinion.
Decided September 11, 2000
Reconsideration dented October 26, 2000.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, William D. Barwick, Teresa W. Roseborough, Robert J. Neis, Amelia T. Rudolph, Carla W. McMillian, for appellant.
Indeed, it is precisely because this Court’s judgment revived the claim of vicarious liability under RICO, that Security II is not inconsistent with Division 1 (c) of Security I, as that subdivision merely held that the injury suffered by Appellees did not flow from any of the predicate acts in which Security was directly involved. On remand, therefore, the Court of Appeals properly vacated Division 1 (c) of its initial opinion only to the extent that it conflicts with this Court’s holdings in Divisions 2 and 3 of Security II. Security III, supra at 691. However, the Court of Appeals’ plurality incorrectly declined to address the remaining enumerations merely because this Court did not remand with direction. In a similar situation, the Court of Appeals properly recognized that “[t]he issues submitted by the remaining enumerations of error which were rendered moot by our previous decision are reopened by the decision of the Supreme Court.” Stevens v. Wakefield, 163 Ga. App. 40 (292 SE2d 516) (1982) (on remand from this Court’s decision in Wakefield v. Stevens, 249 Ga. 254 (290 SE2d 58) (1982), which remanded, but not with any direction). Because of this Court’s previous reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the remaining enumerations are no longer moot. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed for the sole purpose of requiring it to consider those enumerations of error which have not yet been addressed by an appellate court. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Benham joins in this opinion.
*52Davis, Gregory, Christy & Forehand, Hardy Gregory, Jr., Preyesh K. Maniklal, William S. Stone, Kevin R. Dean, for appellees.
Troutman Sanders, Harold G. Clarke, Duncan & Mangiafico, George E. Duncan, Jr., Love & Willingham, Allen S. Willingham, Jones, Cork & Miller, Thomas C. Alexander, Morris, Manning & Martin, Lewis E. Hassett, amici curiae.