DOVER, Del. (Legal Newsline) – The slate is wiped clean for a second Delaware trial after the first included the plaintiff’s lawyer crying and calling the defendants “filth” and a $500,000 punitive damages award – even though only $28 in compensatory damages were issued.
The state Superior Court on Feb. 25 set the stage for a new trial on punitive damages in the case of the late Mark Krieger, whose estate successfully argued AmGuard Insurance Company delayed paying him Workers’ Compensation benefits in bad faith while he was alive.
But the compensation reached in a Kent County Courthouse was only $28 in interest on the delayed payments. Jurors, however, must have been swayed by what the Superior Court called the overzealous representation of Krieger’s estate by lawyer John Spadaro, and handed out a half-million dollars in punitive damages.
That amount was found to be so out of proportion with the compensatory award and that Spadaro’s conduct was so egregious that a new trial on both liability and punitive damages is needed. The Superior Court ruling sorted out pretrial disputes between the two sides.
First among them is Spadaro’s contention that AmGuard should not be able to object to certain arguments and questions in the second trial because it didn’t object in the first. Not so, Judge Jeffrey Clark ruled.
“(I)n a new trial, new evidence may arise, phrasing of questions may be different, witnesses may testify differently, and trial tactics and even strategies may change,” Clark wrote.
Spadaro’s conduct will be a concern too, Clark wrote – “it would be both illogical and judicially uneconomical to prohibit AmGuard from objecting to these matters when the Estate’s inflammatory arguments were the cause of a new trial.”
Spadaro told jurors that AmGuard executives and employees were “filth” who lit their cigars with the money they withheld from Krieger. Spadaro also said they were trying to make fools of the jurors.
“(Spadaro’s) demeanor, when raising some of these arguments, also included a raised voice to nearly the point of shouting, and crying on at least one occasion,” Clark wrote.
Nevertheless, Clark refused AmGuard’s motion to bar new inflammatory statements, preferring not to micromanage the new trial. He did tell Spadaro not to advance the inflammatory arguments already made, though.
He also sort-of refused to stop Spadaro from referencing the oath witnesses must take to testify. AmGuard said his repeated “under oath” comments led jurors to believe the witness must be lying. Without trial context, Clark deferred a decision, instead denying the motion without prejudice, leaving AmGuard free to object during the new trial.
Spadaro was successful in keeping his argument that AmGuard hid the true reason it delayed its payments – that Krieger was hurt while stealing copper. There was a report, found to be false, that that was how Krieger was injured.
Spadaro will get to again argue the company withheld payments intentionally based on a false report.
“Such arguments fall within the bounds of advocacy,” Clark wrote.
Spadaro will also be able to use lawyer Joel Fredericks as a witness, despite AmGuard’s motion to bar it. Fredericks was Krieger’s Workers’ Comp attorney but also offered expert testimony.
AmGuard will be able to object if Fredericks’ testimony strays from his role as a fact witness.