Taszarek v. Lakeview Excavating, Inc., 883 N.W.2d 880

Lakeview Excavating, Inc. (Lakeview) was a small S-corporation; Brian Welken was its president and sole shareholder.
Lakeview contracted with German Township to harvest field rock for a road project; employees harvested rock from adjacent land owned by the Taszareks.
The Taszareks sued Lakeview and Welken for trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment; jury trial was held on trespass and conversion.
At trial plaintiffs requested an "alter ego" instruction to pierce Lakeview’s corporate veil and hold Welken personally liable; the court gave the instruction over Welken’s objection.
The jury found Lakeview was Welken’s alter ego and returned a verdict for the Taszareks against both Lakeview and Welken.
On appeal Welken argued the court erred in (1) submitting the veil-piercing/alter ego question to the jury and (2) giving an insufficient alter ego instruction; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the instruction error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by allowing the jury to decide alter ego / pierce the corporate veil	Taszareks: jury may decide alter ego; damages remedy supports jury resolution	Welken: veil-piercing is equitable and should not have been submitted to jury (or facts did not support it)	Waived by Welken on this ground; failure to object on legal-ground preserved the jury submission issue, so Court declined to reverse on that basis
Whether the alter ego jury instruction was legally adequate	Taszareks: proposed instruction sufficient to let jury find unity of interest and inequity	Welken: instruction failed to define plaintiff's burden or require consideration of established factors	Court held instruction inadequate as a matter of law because it omitted the Hilzendager–Jablonsky factors and reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether error in instruction was harmless	Taszareks: any error harmless given verdict and evidence	Welken: error affected substantial rights (personal liability imposed)	Court found error not harmless and prejudicial to Welken; reversal required
Whether facts at trial supported veil piercing (insufficiency of evidence)	Taszareks: evidence supported alter ego finding	Welken: insufficient factual basis to pierce veil	Not reached on merits; remanded for new trial where factual sufficiency can be addressed

Hanewald v. Bryan’s Inc., 429 N.W.2d 414 (N.D. 1988) (corporate form generally limits shareholder liability)
Watts v. Magic 2 x 52 Mgmt., Inc., 816 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 2012) (burden and discretion in veil-piercing determinations)
Coughlin Constr. Co. v. Nu-Tec Indus., Inc., 755 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 2008) (lists factors permitting corporate veil piercing)
Axtmann v. Chillemi, 740 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 2007) (alter ego doctrine and caution in piercing veil)
Jablonsky v. Klemm, 377 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1985) (requirement of injustice, inequity, or fundamental unfairness)
Hilzendager v. Skwarok, 335 N.W.2d 768 (N.D. 1983) (enumeration of factors relevant to veil-piercing)
Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 2008) (articulation of alter ego test)