Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford

16 Citing cases

  1. Holley Equip. Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp.

    821 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 148 times
    Concluding that a plaintiff's testimony could not be disregarded on summary judgment because the discrepancies in that testimony were not “incredible as a matter of law” or “blatantly inconsistent”

    One who is defrauded has a right of action under Ala. Code § 6-5-100 (1977). If the injured party can show that the opposite party had knowledge of the falsity of the representation, acted with reckless disregard as to its truth, or otherwise intended to deceive or defraud, the injured party is entitled to seek punitive damages. Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986); see Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348, 1354 (Ala. 1982); Ex Parte Smith, 412 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Ala. 1982). If the alleged injury is merely the result of an innocent but mistaken representation, the claimant is only entitled to compensatory damages. Morgan v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 466 So.2d 107, 113 (Ala. 1985).

  2. Cooper Chevrolet, Inc. v. Chambers

    529 So. 2d 913 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    On appeal, this Court will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding that verdict unless the verdict or the judgment is contrary to the preponderance of the credible evidence, contrary to law, the product of bias or passion, or the product of fraud upon the court. Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986); Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Waters, 404 So.2d 26 (Ala. 1981). Cooper Chevrolet's argument is two-fold.

  3. Simpson v. Primerica Life Ins., Co.

    Case No. 2:15-cv-777-WKW-PWG (M.D. Ala. Dec. 3, 2015)   Cited 15 times
    Espousing policy considerations for excluding oral statements from § 1446(b)'s "other paper" requirement, including that an oral settlement demand does not permit a court to examine the plaintiff's words and their meaning for purposes of evaluating the amount in controversy

    Defendants are correct that punitive damages are available under Alabama law for a successful plaintiff who asserts claims of wantonness, outrage, conversion, and fraud, all of which are brought in this case. See Shiv-Ram, Inc. v. McCaleb, 892 So.2d 299 (Ala. 2003) (wantonness); Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Standridge, 565 So.2d 38 (Ala. 1990) (outrage); Roberson v. Ammons, 477 So.2d 957 (Ala. 1985) (conversion); Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So. 2d 866 (Ala. 1986) (fraud). The mere availability of punitive damages for a claim is not dispositive.

  4. Masonry Arts, Inc. v. All S. Precast, LLC

    Case No.: 2:13-CV-01381-RDP (N.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Holley Equipment Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 821 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). Because punitive damages are potentially recoverable in the context of Plaintiff's claims for fraud in the inducement (Count III) and fraud (IV), Id. (citing Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986)), it would be appropriate to consider punitive damages in the computation of the amount in controversy. It is unnecessary at this time, however, for the court to forecast the ultimate value of Plaintiff's claims for damages.

  5. American National Property and Casualty Co. v. Crawford

    Civil Action 00-0123-P-M (S.D. Ala. May. 30, 2000)

    One who is defrauded has a right of action under Ala. Code § 6-5-100 (1977). If the injured party can show that the opposite party had knowledge of the falsity of the representation, acted with reckless disregard as to its truth, or otherwise intended to deceive or defraud, the injured party is entitled to seek punitive damages. Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986); see Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348, 1354 (Ala. 1982); Ex parte Smith, 412 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Ala. 1982).Holley Equipment Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 821 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1987).

  6. Fuller v. Exxon Corp.

    78 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (S.D. Ala. 1999)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that a post-removal clarification "may be considered if the amount in controversy is not apparent on the face of the complaint at the time of removal"

    Alabama law permits an award of punitive damages under each of these theories. See, e.g., Kmart v. Peak, No. 1971282, 1999 WL 756037, at *7 (Ala. Sept. 24, 1999) (recklessness/wantonness); Fulton v. Callahan, 621 So.2d 1235, 1238 (Ala. 1993) (breach of fiduciary duty); Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986) (fraud). The court may therefore consider these punitive damages claims in ascertaining whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

  7. Holman v. Montage Group

    79 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S.D. Ala. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    Alabama law permits a plaintiff to recover punitive damages under both theories. See, e.g., Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986) (fraud); Gross v. Lowder Realty Better Homes Gardens, 494 So.2d 590, 597 n. 4 (Ala. 1986) (intentional interference with business relations). Accordingly, the court may consider Holman's claims for punitive damages in determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

  8. Lowe's OK'd Used Cars, Inc. v. Acceptance Insurance

    995 F. Supp. 1388 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 36 times
    In Acceptance, the lower court reduced the jury's compensatory damages award on the bad faith claim from $200,000 to $75,000.00, id. at 11, and the Alabama Supreme Court held that the “trial court should have reduced the compensatory-damages award... from $200,000 to $30,000[,]” id. at 23.

    See, e.g., Id. at 1535-37; Thomas v. Principal Financial Group, 566 So.2d 735 (Ala. 1990) (punitive damages awarded for bad faith); Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866, 871 (Ala. 1986) (punitive damages for fraud). Accordingly, the court properly considers Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages, in addition to their request for compensatory damages of $16,305.50, in assessing whether Defendant has met its preponderance burden.

  9. Duck Head Apparel Co., Inc. v. Hoots

    659 So. 2d 897 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 14 times
    Upholding compensatory awards of $2,000,000; $1,000,000; and $500,000 for emotional distress suffered by three sales representatives defrauded out of their sales commissions

    At that time, another case involving similar allegations of fraud against BMW had been tried and no punitive damages were awarded. See Yates v. BMW of North America, Inc., 642 So.2d 937 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993), cert. quashed, 642 So.2d 937 (Ala. 1993). Still, by multiplying 13 x $162,637, the maximum punitive damages award, adjusted for inflation, that had been affirmed in a similar case ( Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866 (Ala. 1986), appeal dismissed, 486 U.S. 1028, 108 S.Ct. 2008, 100 L.Ed.2d 596 (1988)), I arrived at a figure in excess of $2,000,000; therefore, I concurred specially. The jury returned a verdict in this case on November 24, 1993, at the conclusion of a 7-day trial.

  10. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

    646 So. 2d 619 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 44 times
    In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 646 So.2d 619 (Ala. 1994), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 932, 130 L.Ed.2d 879 (1995), which involved evidence of a pattern and practice of fraudulent or wrongful sales of automobiles, this Court reduced a punitive damages award from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000.

    German Auto, Inc. v. Tamburello, 565 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1990) (original punitive damages award of $10,815).Mobile Dodge, Inc. v. Alford, 487 So.2d 866 (Ala. 1986) (general verdict of $125,000, treated as if the entire award was for punitive damages). In comparison cases from other jurisdictions, the amount of inflation-adjusted punitive damages was similar to that of the Alabama cases, ranging from approximately $12,000 ( Mills v. Keith Marsh Chevrolet, Inc., 549 S.W.2d 604 (Mo.Ct.App. 1977) (original punitive damages award of $5,000)) to approximately $196,000 ( Douglas v. Ostermeier, 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 (Cal.Ct.App. 1991) (original punitive damages award of $187,000)).