Court Opinion

ID: 9855299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:29.839479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:36.403070
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Reconsideration.
Hillman’s motion for reconsideration contends that we erred in deciding that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the punitive damages claim was proper since the court had held that fraud was a jury issue.
We do not reach the issue Hillman argues of whether a claim of fraud which survives summary judgment mandates the allowance of punitive damages, because in this case the trial court should have granted summary judgment as to the fraud claim. We do not accept Hillman’s argument that a jury could reasonably infer that GMAC’s representations that late payment would be accepted and that her balance due need not be paid immediately were knowingly false when made and were made with the intent to deceive. Furthermore, we find no reasonable reliance in Hillman’s behavior. The evidence of fraud was insufficient to withstand the motion for summary judgment, thus the grant of summary judgment on the claim for punitive damages was proper.

Motion for reconsideration denied.

*841McCullough & Pane, John G. McCullough, for appellees.