Jet Source Charter v. Doherty
The jury in this case determined that in locating and negotiating the purchase price of aircraft on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant aircraft dealers owed the plaintiff the duties of a fiduciary. The jury further found that in providing the plaintiff with misleading information about the negotiated price of the aircraft, the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding of liability. Although the parties did not have a written agency contract, their course of conduct and the customary practice in the aircraft industry fully supported a finding the aircraft dealers were the plaintiff's agents and therefore obligated to provide the plaintiff with accurate information about the price the aircraft dealers had negotiated with the sellers of the aircraft.
Although court agree the trial court erred in instructing the jury that both brokers and agents owe purchasers the duties of a fiduciary, in light of testimony from the aircraft industry experts offered by the parties and the record of willful deceit on the part of the defendants, the error was harmless. Moreover, the record contains ample evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer the aircraft dealer had retained concealed secret profits equal to or greater than the compensatory damages awarded to plaintiff.
However, court reverse and remand as to the award of punitive damages with instructions that the trial court limit them on a pro rata basis to an amount which in total does not exceed the compensatory damages awarded. Where, as here, the conduct in question only involves economic damage to a single plaintiff who is not particularly vulnerable, an award which exceeds the compensatory damages awarded is not consistent with due process.
Comments on Jet Source Charter v. Doherty