- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in North America
- in North America
- in North America
- in North America
- in North America
- in North America
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Technology and Property industries
- within Accounting and Audit and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
DigiNovations, Inc. brought a nine-count complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court against its former executive vice president, Wales, former employee Mackos, and the competing company they founded, Endeavor Films, Inc. After an 11-day trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of DigiNovations on all nine counts, awarding total damages of nearly $1.6 million allocated separately among the three defendants. Following trial, the judge imposed double damages against Endeavor Films under G.L. c. 93A, Section 11, and awarded attorney’s fees against Endeavor as well.
The defendants challenged this award, particularly with respect to c. 93A, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The defendants argued that because the trial judge reserved the c. 93A damages determination for herself rather than submitting it to the jury, she was required under Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a) to make independent factual findings. The Appeals Court rejected this argument, reasoning that Rule 52(a) applies only to actions “tried upon the facts without a jury,” and that here the jury had already made the underlying factual finding that Endeavor’s violation of c. 93A was willful and knowing – a finding upon which the judge was entitled to rely in making her damages determination. The court’s reasoning indicates that in jury trials where c. 93A claims are also alleged, the jury’s factual findings on willfulness and knowledge may inform the judge’s analysis in the subsequent damages phase.
A notable development also emerged within the c. 93A ruling itself. The trial judge expressly declined to award treble damages, stating in written findings that “while the defendants’ conduct was harmful to the plaintiff, it was not so egregious as to warrant treble damages.” The court’s distinction between double and treble damages illustrates that even where willful and knowing conduct is found under c. 93A, courts retain discretion over the multiplier applied. The judge’s written findings on this point, while resulting in a doubled award against Endeavor, reflect an outcome short of the maximum financial exposure available under the statute.
The decision in DigiNovations, Inc. v. Wales addresses several aspects of how c. 93A damages are determined in the context of a jury trial, including the relationship between jury findings on willfulness and the judge’s subsequent damages analysis, and the court’s exercise of discretion in selecting between available damages multipliers under c. 93A.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
