Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois
949 N.E.2d 155
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Dueling appeals after a six‑day trial involving an intrusion upon seclusion claim and a fiduciary duty counterclaim arising from a noncompetition investigation.
- Plaintiff Lawlor alleged North American obtained her private phone records via pretexting through agents Probe and Discover.
- North American argued it was not liable for Probe/Discover’s conduct and challenged Lawlor’s evidence of breach of loyalty.
- Jury found Lawlor liable for no breach; instead, Lawlor received $1.75M punitive and $65K compensatory for intrusion; North American received $78,781 compensatory and $551,467 punitive on counterclaim.
- North American sought directed verdict/judgment on Lawlor’s intrusion claim; the court denied, and remitted punitive damages on appeal.
- Lawlor’s cross‑appeal challenged the loyalty verdict and punitive damages remittitur; appellate court reinstated Lawlor’s full punitive award and vacated North American’s loyalty judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency liability for investigator conduct | Lawlor: Probe/Discover were North American agents; North American controlled them. | North American: No agency; investigators acted independently. | Evidence supported agency liability; affirmed denial of directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. |
| Punitive damages on intrusion claim | Punitive damages warranted due to willful, covert invasion. | Damages excessive; remittitur appropriate. | Punitive award reinstated; remittitur reversed as an abuse of discretion. |
| Remittitur constitutional review of punitive damages | High net worth and fees justify larger punitive award. | Award disproportionately high; remittitur appropriate. | Court held award not unconstitutional; remittitur reversed as abuse. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty by Lawlor | Lawlor violated loyalty by disclosing confidential information and attempting to steer MapQuest. | No enforceable duty or breach; information not confidential. | Trial court’s loyalty verdict against Lawlor reversed; no breach proven. |
| Procuring-cause commissions | Lawlor entitled to commissions post‑termination for pre‑termination procuring activity. | Compensation policy precludes post‑termination commissions; no contract breach. | Directed verdict proper; pre‑termination agreement governed commissions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slovinski v. Elliot, 237 Ill.2d 51 (Ill. 2010) (punitive damages permissible for egregious conduct; standards applied)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (due process limits on punitive damages; ratio considerations)
- Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co., 61 Ill.2d 31 (Ill. 1975) (agency-based punitive damages against principal for agent’s acts)
- Dubey v. Public Storage, Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d 342 (Ill. App. 2009) (three-step punitive damages review; abuse of discretion standards)
- ABC Trans National Transport, Inc. v. Aeronautics Forwarders, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 671 (Ill. App. 1978) (fiduciary duties; use of confidential information and competition)
- Veco Corp. v. Babcock, 243 Ill.App.3d 153 (Ill. App. 1993) (corporate officers’ loyalty duties; breach by soliciting for competitors)
- International Union Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Lowe Excavating Co., 225 Ill.2d 456 (Ill. 2006) (consideration of attorney fees in punitive damages)