Walter Olson is concerned:
J. Craig Williams sounds the alarm about a new California Supreme Court opinion (authored, whether curiously or not, by libertarian-admired Justice Janice Rogers Brown) which would seem to open a door for lawyers to start claiming punitive damages in contract disputes.
Hold on to your towels and don't panic, gentlemen: there appears to be a good deal of overstatement going around about the Court's year-end decision in Robinson Helicopter Company v. Dana Corporation. While that decision may well mean that punitive damages will become an issue in some cases that also involve breach of contract claims, it does not stand for the proposition that one can recover punitive damages for breach of contract. Decs&Excs' summary and analysis of the decision continues in the extended body of this post, below.
For those who want to read it for themselves, the decision in Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. v. Dana Corporation (December 23, 2004), Case No. S114054 can be accessed at these links in PDF and Word formats.
[Note: The links will expire in approximately 120 days; the opinion should still be accessible thereafter by substituting "archive" for "documents" in the URL.]
Update [01/11/05]: Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, guest-posting at Crime & Federalism, is also interested in the possible consequences of this case, in which he participated by filing an amicus brief.
[Extended discussion begins here:]
First, particularly for the non-lawyers who may read this, the law generally makes a broad distinction between claims that arise from a contract and claims that arise from a tort:
- A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, and the role of the courts is generally to hold those parties to the bargain they have made; if one party fails to perform, he or she may owe money damages to the other to compensate for what was promised but not delivered.
- Torts encompass all those claims in which one person's conduct has caused damage to another -- claims ranging from negligence to intentional physical attacks to defamation to fraud -- but in which the wrong arises from a general legal duty (to be careful, to tell the truth, to avoid hitting one's barmate upside the head with a whisky bottle, etc.) rather than from the parties' agreement between themselves.
- In some tort cases -- generally those involving intentional, malicious, altogether unacceptable behavior by the wrongdoer -- the law permits an additional award of punitive damages (sometimes called "exemplary damages"), above and beyond any damages that must be paid to compensate the injured victim. The purpose of those additional damages is, as the names suggest, to punish or to make an example of the particularly wrongful wrongdoer.
When it comes to punitive damages, the law has generally maintained a very strict distinction between cases that arise from contracts and cases that arise from torts. The near-universal rule is that breach of contract will not give rise to a claim for punitive damages. That distinction is made explicit in California's principal punitive damages statute, Civil Code §3294, the first paragraph of which states:
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
[Emphasis added.]
Has this rule been changed by the Supreme Court in the Robinson Helicopter case? Not really.
Robinson Helicopter is, not surprisingly, a manufacturer of helicopters. Dana Corporation was Robinson's sole supplier of "sprag clutches". FAA regulations require all aircraft manufactured in the U.S., including helicopters, to be manufactured consistently with a "type certificate." "The type certificate freezes the design as of the date the certificate is issued. Every aircraft made pursuant to the certificate must be produced exactly in accordance with that certificate." Robinson's type certificate for its R22 and R44 models required the sprag clutches "to be ground at a particular level of hardness to assure their metallurgical integrity."
Dana provided sprag clutches to Robinson for some fourteen years. For one period of fifteen months, Dana unilaterally adopted a different hardness standard, without ever mentioning the change to either Robinson or the FAA. The clutches provided during that period had a significantly higher failure rate than the certificate-compliant clutches. "Fortunately, these clutch failures did not result in any helicopter accident and there were no incidents of injury or property damage that were caused by any clutch defect or failure, nor did any of the defective clutches cause any damage to other parts of the helicopters in which they had been installed." The absence of damage or injury notwithstanding, the FAA required Robinson to replace all of the approximately 990 non-compliant sprag clutches, which Robinson did at a cost to itself above $1.5 million.
Robinson filed suit against Dana to recover its costs. Robinson's principal theory was that the non-compliant clutches did not comply with the provisions of its contract with Dana. Robinson also claimed that Dana had made both negligent and intentional misrepresentations, first by not disclosing the change that it had made to the clutch assemblies and later by denying that there had been anything wrong with those clutches and by delaying its response to a request to identify which particular lots had been manufactured to the unapproved hardness standard.
At trial, the jury awarded Robinson $1,533,924 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damage award; the Supreme Court has ordered the award reinstated.
The Court of Appeal rejected the punitive damage award because it concluded that Robinson was entitled to recover only for breach of contract and not on any tort theory. That decision was based on the so-called "economic loss rule." In simplest terms, that rule holds that when a defective product injures a person or causes damage to some other property, the purchaser of the product has a claim against the manufacturer in tort; however, if the product simply fails to perform as well as expected -- if it "disappoints the buyer's expectations" without actually damaging persons or other property -- then the buyer's remedy is solely in contract. The Court of Appeal reasoned that because no one was injured and no other property was harmed by Dana's non-compliant clutches, Robinson's sole remedy for its expense in replacing those clutches was its claim for breach of contract. No tort damages of any kind, whether compensatory or punitive, were recoverable based on Dana's alleged misrepresentations.
The California Supreme Court rejects that conclusion, as stated in the first paragraph of the majority Opinion:
In this case, we decide whether the economic loss rule, which in some circumstances bars a tort action in the absence of personal injury or physical damage to other property, applies to claims for intentional misrepresentation or fraud in the performance of a contract. Because plaintiff Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s (Robinson) fraud and intentional misrepresentation claim, with respect to Dana Corporation’s (Dana) provision of false certificates of conformance, is an independent action based in tort, we conclude that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery.
[Emphasis added.]
The highlighted phrase is ultimately the linchpin of the Court's reasoning. The Court concludes that Dana's misrepresentations about the sprag clutches give rise to a claim for damages that is separate from and independent of the defective condition of the clutches. That is, Robinson suffered a separate harm as a result of Dana's misrepresentations, that harm will support a tort claim, and that tort claim will support the imposition of punitive damages.
So, has the Supreme Court endorsed punitive damages for breach of contract? No. If Dana had merely provided non-compliant sprag clutches, Robinson would be limited to recovering its cost of replacing them, under a breach of contract theory and subject to the limitations of the economic loss rule. Dana did more than provide unacceptable goods: it did so knowing that the sprag clutches did not comply with the type certificate, it later falsely denied having done so, and it delayed in identifying the non-compliant lots. That conduct, above and beyond the failure to properly perform its contract, is conduct the Supreme Court finds sufficient to warrant a tort recovery based upon misrepresentation, and that tort recovery permits the punitive damages.
There is more that could be said about this case -- Justice Werdegar's dissenting opinion, accusing the majority of "breath[ing] new life into the heretofore moribund doctrine of bad faith denial of breach of contract", might be worthy of a post in itself -- but this discussion is already sufficiently long-winded. Suffice it to say for now (and with the caveat that the courts may still prove Decs&Excs' analysis to be unduly optimistic) that reports of the death of the tort/contract distinction in California appear to be somewhat exaggerated.
Again, the decision in Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. v. Dana Corporation (December 23, 2004), Case No. S114054 can be accessed at these links in PDF and Word formats.
[Note: The links will expire in approximately 120 days; the opinion should still be accessible thereafter by substituting "archive" for "documents" in the URL.]
Comments