Court Opinion

ID: 9409757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 14:07:42.072409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.157453
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, WILLIAM 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
JAMIE HEYNES, DAVID MCDONNELL,          :   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 BROBSON                                                  DECIDED: JULY 19, 2023

       I concur in the result of the Majority because I believe the facts of this case

demonstrate that the per-defendant approach to assessing the ratio discussed in BMW

of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), is permissible. I disagree, however,

with the Majority’s suggestion that the Defendants (FNIA, FNB Corp., FNB, and Turk)

may have avoided the per-defendant approach as applied here by having the jury

“allocate responsibility for the harm [among the Defendants].” Majority Op. at 43-44. The

Majority posits that the Defendants’ “trial strategy” to agree with Northwest that the jury

charge and verdict slip would instruct the jury to enter a single compensatory damages

award now prevents this Court from ascertaining a more accurate “comparison of the

Defendants’ responsibility for the harm to the reprehensibility of the Defendants’ conduct.”

Id. at 7 n.10, 36, 43-44. For several reasons, I disagree with this position.

       First, there may be valid reasons for declining to request that a jury allocate harm

among multiple defendants, particularly where all defendants are contesting liability. For

example, trial counsel may be wary of suggesting to a jury that his client is less liable than

another party while simultaneously claiming that his client has no liability at all. Allocating

                   [J-59A-2022 and J-59B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 2
harm may also confuse the jury, and, as explained in more detail below, there may be

circumstances where harm is indivisible.

       Second, as the parties represent in their briefs, they “agreed” to enter a single,

lump-sum award because joint and several liability applied and the injury to Northwest

was indivisible.   (See   Defendants’ Br. at 11-12 (“While the jury awarded separate

compensatory damage amounts for each count, per agreement, only the highest

compensatory damage number is recoverable since joint and several liability applied.”));

(Northwest Br. at 33-34 (“The jury note reflected that it was uncontroverted that

[Northwest] sustained a single, indivisible injury . . . [that] was incapable of being divided

into separate and distinct parts.”).) The trial court similarly noted that Northwest could not

recover multiple times for the same injury under the law and that the joint and several

nature of the injury required that the jury enter a single compensatory damages award.

(See Reproduced Record at 496a-97a (instructing jury that “each Defendant that is liable

on these causes of action is jointly and severally liable for the damages, which means

that [Northwest] can attempt to recover the amount . . . awarded against any of the liable

Defendants. If you award damages on multiple causes of action, [Northwest] will only be

able to recover the amount of the highest damage award.”).) Thus, the parties and the

trial court were clearly operating under the belief that the law permitted only a single,

lump-sum compensatory damages award. The Majority correctly recognizes that a jury

can allocate a joint and several compensatory award among multiple defendants, but,

based on the representations of the parties and the trial court and in review of the claims

and injury to Northwest, it is not clear to me that this case involved an injury that is

divisible.

       Consequently, in my view, this Court is faced with: (1) an indivisible compensatory

award; (2) individualized punitive damages awards based on the reprehensibility of each

                   [J-59A-2022 and J-59B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 3
of the Defendants’ conduct; (3) joint and several liability among the Defendants;

and (4) the inability to group the Defendants together and treat them as a single actor.

Under these circumstances, I agree with the outcome reached by the Majority that

calculating the Gore ratio by utilizing the $250,000 compensatory damages award for the

First National Defendants and the $164,9431 compensatory damages award for Turk as

the denominator and utilizing each Defendants’ individual punitive damages award in the

numerator—i.e., the per-defendant approach—is permissible.           Further, this factual

scenario makes clear that this is not a circumstance where trial strategy could have

impacted the constitutionality of the punitive damages awards.

         Assuming arguendo that the actual harm to Northwest could be allocated among

the Defendants, a remand to the trial court for such an allocation and a review of the

constitutionality of the punitive damages awards would be appropriate given that this

involves an issue of first impression. As such, the parties and their counsel clearly had

no knowledge that failing to allocate the compensatory damages award could potentially

lead to an unfavorable punitive-to-compensatory ratio. In other words, I would not fault

the parties for failing to take measures of which they were unaware in order to preserve

a means of demonstrating that the individual punitive damages awards at issue are

excessive. Cf. Newman Dev. Grp. of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi’s Family Markets, Inc.,

52 A.3d 1233, 1247-48 (Pa. 2012) (suggesting that “the heavy consequence of waiver”

should only be applied where a rule is both “clear” and consistent with “the reasonable

expectations of practicing attorneys”). This is particularly so where this matter involves

an exceptionally malleable area of law.

         Going forward, should a compensatory damages award lend itself to allocation at

trial in a situation where punitive damages may also be awarded, it may be beneficial for

1   The highest amount that Turk was jointly and severally liable for was $164,943.

                    [J-59A-2022 and J-59B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 4
the trial court and the parties to determine at the outset whether such compensatory

damages should be allocated by the fact-finder—be it a jury or a trial judge—or whether

the matter should be bifurcated. If the matter is bifurcated, the fact-finder could allocate

compensatory damages and assess punitive damages independent from questions of

liability, thereby dispelling any jury confusion or problems arising from trial strategy

mentioned above. If a party fails to take such action, it may find itself in a situation where

the only available method of assessing the constitutionality of a punitive damages award

is, like the present case, the per-defendant method where a joint and several, lump-sum

compensatory award serves as a recurring denominator.

       Finally, Justice Mundy notes in a concurring opinion that there may be

circumstances not presently before the Court where the per-judgment approach is more

appropriate than the per-defendant approach applied here.           Justice Mundy notably

highlights that the United States Supreme Court has “continuously refused to create

mechanical rules in considering the constitutionality of the punitive-to-compensatory

damages ratio.” Concurring Op. at 5 (Mundy, J.). I agree. Given the complexity of this

area of the law, I would likewise leave open the possibility that the per-judgment approach

or some hybrid method could serve as the best means under different circumstances for

assessing the constitutionality of a punitive award.

       For the above reasons, I concur in the result.

                   [J-59A-2022 and J-59B-2022] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 5