439 S.W.3d 802
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ms. Kerr sued Vatterott Educational Centers for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act arising from admissions representations concerning two programs (MOA vs MA).
- Vatterott advertised MA (90 weeks) and MOA (60 weeks) programs; MOA was described as a stand-alone program offering administrative training.
- Ms. Lehman (admissions) told Kerr the MA program existed and would count toward nursing goals, with faster completion and job prospects.
- Kerr enrolled in MOA, signed enrollment documents, and was later told she would need an extra $10,000 for the MA clinical portion; she did not receive full MOA value.
- Kerr ultimately completed the MOA program, graduated with a Certificate of Completion (not an AS degree), and could not use credits toward nursing or obtain related employment.
- A jury awarded Kerr actual damages and a substantial punitive damages award; the trial court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and post-trial amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kerr presented a submissible MMPA case | Kerr purchased for personal use; evidence supports deception | No personal-purposes predicate; contemporaneous documents negate deception | Submissible; trial court properly denied directed verdict |
| Whether contemporaneous documents negate deception | Oral statements misled Kerr despite documents | Written documents show MOA enrollment, not MA | Merger rule does not bar MMPA deception evidence; error not shown |
| Whether MAI 4.01 vs MAI 4.03 was proper damages instruction | Damages could be zero value; 4.01 appropriate | 4.03 required if misrepresentation; value/consequences material | 4.01 proper; no reversible error; exception permits 4.01 when value is zero |
| Whether punitive damages were appropriate given due-process limits | Pattern of deception justifies high punitive ratio | Ratios should be within due-process limits | Punitive award upheld; ratio deemed permissible given egregious conduct |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be added to net judgment for caps | Appellate fees should be included under §510.265.1 | Net judgment cap excludes appellate fees | Appellate fees awarded; cap not extended to include appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (review of directed verdict standard; submissible case)
- Riley v. Lucas Lofts Investors, LLC, 412 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (MMPA; merger rule not applied to deception evidence)
- Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 404 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2013) (written instrument merger rule in MMPA context (Chochorowski II))
- Sunset Pools of St. Louis, Inc. v. Schaefer, 869 S.W.2d 883 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (damages under fraud/ MMPA; benefit-of-the-bargain vs other measures)
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (Supreme Court 2007) (limits on punitive damages; nonparty harm consideration)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 2003) (due process and punitive-damage proportionality factors)
- Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin Nat’l Auto Sales N., LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. banc 2012) (three-factor test for grossly excessive punitive damages)
- Dierkes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mo., 991 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1999) (alternative damages measures when benefit-of-bargain inadequate)
- Drew v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 596 F.Supp. 1371 (W.D. Mo. 1984) (purpose analysis for consumer goods under related statutes)
- Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc., 289 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (MMPA misrepresentation damages; context for damages instructions)
- Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A. (Chochorowski II), 404 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2013) (merger rule in MMPA context; written vs oral communications)