Kilpatrick v. Strosberg - The Court has Modified its Opinon
The background and facts of this matter can be found at our previously reported entry on the Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg opinion when it was handed down in April. On August 8, the Appellate Court released a modified opinion in the matter and withdrew the previous opinion.
Of note, the new opinion adds an issue previously unaddressed by the court and changes the appellate court's ruling on a previous decision about punitive damages in the case.
1) Upholding the trial court’s finding that the difference between the square footage depicted in their sales contracts and the square footage of the units as built did not amount to a breach of contract. Contract language indicating that the floor plan measurements were approximations was included in a rider to the sales contracts that stated:
“All dimensions on the attached marked-up floor plan dated __ are approximate and subject o adjustments due to the actual location of piping, electrical, studs, steel bar joists, and other building components.”
The court also found that the architect’s construction drawings were incorporated into the contracts another provision in the agreement and used that fact to bolster the determination that the plans attached to the sales contracts were approximations.
2) The Appellate court reversed its previous opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the trial court’s award of $300,000 in punitive damages where the plaintiffs did not establish a basis for computing compensatory or actual damages. The court revised its opinion and stated that where the trial court expressly found that the plaintiff’s proved actual damages punitive damages would be allowed. It then addressed the issue of the excessive nature of the $300,000 in punitive damages where no compensatory damages were awarded and held that the damages were not excessive and cited several cases including the Illinois Supreme Court’s Lowe decision (225 Ill.2d 456, 870 N.E.2d 303) encouraging courts to keep the ratio of punitive damages in the single digits. Although the court had no compensatory damages to create a ration, the court found that an award of $83,000 in attorney’s fees in this matter compared in a 3.5 to 1 ration with the damages and was not excessive.
The court then affirmed the rest of the trial court’s determinations thus modifying its previous opinion to a full affirmation of the trial court’s findings by changing its decision about the award of punitive damages.
