Ga. Justices Toss Punitive Damages Against Surety for Conservator's Theft
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages a probate judge entered against the conservator could not be levied against the insurance company that provided the surety bond.
May 11, 2018 at 01:58 PM
4 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled the issuer of a surety bond is not responsible for a $150,000 punitive damages award a probate court levied against it and the conservator of an incapacitated woman after the judge determined the conservator had looted the funds.
The finding overturns a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that left Ohio Casualty Co., which served as the surety for the conservator, on the hook not only for $167,000 in misappropriated funds, but jointly and severally liable for $150,000 in punitive damages as well.
“Our argument was that there's never been a case in Georgia where a surety was assessed for punitive damages unless the statute calling for the bond—which are required by law—specified that penalties were available,” said Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin partner Tim Burson.
“These bonds are essentially guarantees that guardians and estate administrators will fulfill their fiduciary duties,” he said. “Probate cases like this are ripe for people who don't just mishandle the estate's assets, but get sticky fingers and actually take money.”
If the lower courts' rulings had stood, such relatively pricey bonds could have been more difficult for sureties to write, he said.
“These bonds have become among the hardest to get, and they're getting harder. To conceptualize that we could be responsible for unlimited punitive damages is one of those things that make us take a second look,” said Burson, who represented Ohio Casualty Insurance and parent Liberty Mutual, along with firm partners William Bryant and John Burch.
The attorney for the current conservator, Richard Neville of Cummings' Neville & Cunat, declined to discuss the case.
Craig Oakes of Lawrenceville's Bryant & Oakes, who represents the now-replaced conservator, Emanuel Gladstone, said the decision “speaks for itself.”
As detailed in the justices' ruling and other documents, the case began in 2015 when Forsyth County Probate Court Judge Lynwood Jordan Jr. appointed Gladstone to be the conservator for his wife, Jacqueline, who suffered from dementia.
Jordan set a $430,000 bond that Ohio Casualty posted and appointed an attorney to oversee the management of the conservatorship.
Several months later, the attorney raised concerns that Emmanuel Gladstone had not provided a proper asset management plan and was making unapproved expenditures.
Jordan removed Gladstone and appointed another conservator. Following a hearing, Jordan issued an order finding that—while some of Emmanuel Gladstone's expenditures were justified—there were improper withdrawals from the account, including $80,000 he withdrew just before Jordan replaced him.
Jordan ordered Gladstone and Ohio Mutual to repay $167,000 and, finding Gladstone breached his fiduciary duty, another $150,000 in joint and several punitive damages.
Ohio Casualty immediately paid the $167,000, Burson said, then both Gladstone and Ohio Casualty filed separate appeals with the Georgia Court of Appeals, with the surety challenging only the punitive damages awarded against it.
In March 2017, the appeals court upheld both the actual and punitive damages award against Gladstone and Ohio Casualty.
In the section dealing with Ohio Casualty's appeal, the appeals court found that, while the relevant law “requires that a conservator's bond 'be in a value equal to the estimated value of the estate,' if it is secured by a licensed commercial surety, it does not necessarily follow, as the surety argues, that recovery is limited to actual loss.”
“Because Gladstone failed to discharge all of his duties faithfully, both he and the surety are jointly and severally liable up to the amount of the bond,” it said.
But Justice Michael Boggs, writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, said the law contained no such provision. Justice Nels Peterson did not participate.
“We find no authority in the conservator's bond statutes authorizing punitive damages against the surety and the surety is not engaged in any wrongful conduct, so the punishment and deterrent purpose of punitive damages would be entirely misplaced,” Boggs wrote.
The opinion cited a 1941 ruling, Nat. Surety Corp. v. Gatlin, 192 Ga. 293, “which provided that the measure of damages recoverable in actions on official bonds for the misconduct of the officer was, 'unless otherwise specially enacted,' the amount of the injury actually sustained.'”
Burson said the opinion still leaves Gladstone open for efforts by Ohio Casualty to recoup the $167,000 it paid, and for the current conservator to also pursue him for the punitive damages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Paragraph V Displaced Lathrop': High Court Mulls Sovereign Immunity Waiver Disputes
7 minute read11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
State Appeals Court 'Reluctantly' Remands $1.7B Punitive Damages, Sanctions Against Ford for Fatal Rollover
High Court to Weigh If Amended Complaints Establish Sovereign Immunity Waiver
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Delaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
- 2Legaltech Rundown: Josef Closes Quick Funding Round, SixFifty Launches AI Research Tool, and More
- 3As 2024 Comes to a Close, Here’s a Look Back at the Midsize Law Firm Mergers That Made Waves This Year
- 42 Albany Players Announce Merger to Create 113-Attorney Firm
- 5AU 326, CECL and Calculating Loss Under GAAP
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250