Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois
2012 IL 112530
| Ill. | 2013Background
- Lawlor, a commission-based salesperson, left North American in June 2005 amid a noncompetition dispute.
- North American launched an internal investigation led by its corporate attorney Greenblatt, with Dolan as contact person, and hired Probe to conduct the inquiry.
- Dolan provided Lawlor’s personal data to Probe, which then used Discover to obtain Lawlor’s private home and cell phone records via pretexting.
- The records were forwarded to Probe and ultimately to North American; some staff attempted to verify whether numbers belonged to customers.
- Lawlor sued for intrusion upon seclusion; North American counterclaimed for fiduciary breach; trials in 2009 yielded a compensatory/punitive split for both sides and a remittitur from 1.75 million to 650,000.
- Appellate court affirmed the intrusion verdict, reinstated the punitive damages, and reversed the fiduciary-duty judgment; this court grants review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether North American is vicariously liable for the investigators' intrusion | Lawlor contends North American directed or ratified the pretexting and agency existed. | North American asserts no agency; investigators acted independently. | Agency existed; North American liable. |
| Whether the punitive damages for intrusion were excessive | Lawlor seeks substantial punitive damages for repeated deceitful conduct. | Remittitur or smaller award appropriate due to de minimis harm and vicarious liability. | Remittitur to 65,000 appropriate; original 1.75 million excessive. |
| Whether Lawlor breached fiduciary duty | North American asserts Lawlor disclosed confidential information and steered business. | Evidence insufficient to prove breach by Lawlor. | Appellate court correctly reversed fiduciary-duty ruling; no net breach proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slovinski v. Elliott, 237 Ill. 2d 51 (Ill. 2010) (punitive damages remittitur review; equal-to-compensatory damages threshold)
- Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co., 61 Ill. 2d 31 (Ill. 1975) (punitive damages authority in vicarious liability contexts)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (due process ratio considerations for punitive damages)
- Slovinski, 237 Ill. 2d 51 (2010), 237 Ill. 2d 51 (Ill. 2010) (same case as above; reference for remittitur framework)
- Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill. 2d 276 (Ill. 2009) (principal-agent and agency burden standards)