Ecker
HARTFORD, Conn. - Nothing stops certain plaintiffs in Connecticut from both tripling the damages they are awarded while also receiving punitive damages, the state Supreme Court has ruled in a stolen-identity case brought by a lawyer.
There is no "double recovery" when upping compensatory damages and giving out punitive awards, the court found Aug. 5 in partly reversing a lower court ruling. The decision applies to claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state’s identity theft law.
Putting as much money as possible up for grabs will help convince victims of identity theft to act as private attorneys general in court, the court found.
"Because an individual plaintiff's actual damages, even when trebled (tripled), are often relatively small in comparison to the systemic harm resulting from those schemes, the prospect of an award of punitive damages may encourage individuals to pursue claims that otherwise would not be filed," Justice Steven Ecker wrote.
Frank Charles White, an attorney in Connecticut, was surprised to find his name on a sham website believed to be operated by a criminal organization in Mexico around 2019. His name and attorney number were used to lure victims into a time-share scheme.
Owners who sold Mexican time-shares transferred funds to the criminals with the false promise they would be returned at closing. White found out about the website when his mother received a phone call from one victim.
White called the number on the site and was told "calm down and you won't get hurt." He contacted the Statewide Grievance Committee and helped get the site shut down twice.
An investigator found about 40 people had collectively lost millions of dollars. One woman in Arizona lost more than $700,000 - her entire life savings. White obtained a default judgment when suing FCW Law Offices and John Does.
On his claim for emotional distress under the state's identity theft law, White was awarded $150,000 in the trial court and $300,000 in punitive damages on his CUPTA argument. In July 2023, he asked that the $150,000 be tripled, but the trial court refused.
The Appellate Court said sure, but added that he couldn't receive triple damages plus the $300,000 in punitive damages. It said he could only recover once for the losses he sustained "in connection with that transaction, occurrence or event."
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding damages are only duplicative if they address the same legal harm.
"Remedies are not duplicative simply because their availability arises out of the same transaction, occurrence or event," Ecker wrote.
"Just as our criminal statutes authorize multiple punishments for conduct occurring in the same transaction when the statutes in question are intended 'to protect separate and distinct interest of society,' so, too, the law sometimes provides a civil claimant multiple, cumulative remedies to redress different or distinctive types of harm, even if precipitated by a single incident."
The result is a $750,000 judgment for White, but the unknown identities of the defendants would make it hard to collect. He told The Middletown Press last year that he could recover from a U.S. bank if it did business with the scammers.
White has added one woman convicted in the scheme to his amended complaint.
