reasonable administration 'enforeement [*] requirement Lu doubt lies of our at the foundation [*] has this vital of criminal [*] proof beyond % law.' role of the [*] a tary principle, which impresses cerning of the genuousness. administration us as bedrock evincing intellectual axiomatic lies at of our the foundation criminal *1 and elemen- disin- law, cogent rea- denied. Petition procedure criminal our during eriminal The accused sons. MILLER, im- concur. interest of JJ. at stake prosecution has SHIELDS of importance, both mense liberty may lose his he possibility cer- of the and because upon conviction stigmatized he would be
tainty that society Accordingly,
the conviction. and freedom name good
that values not condemn should every individual
of man for commission there standard Moreover, respect and L is reasonable [*] use indispensable confidence [*] doubt about reasonable-doubt [*] a crime when # command his commu- guilt. [*] BEST MILLER INC., Appellee-Plaintiff. BEERS Appellant-Defendant, BREWING OF BLOOMINGTON, COMPANY, law. the criminal applications nity No. 53A01-9008-CV-00344. moral force critical that It is Indiana, Appeals Court by a standard diluted law not be criminal District. First people doubt leaves proof being con- men are innocent whether 9, 1991. Oct. free in our important also It is demned. 7, 1991. Denied Nov. Transfer going about every individual society that confidence have ordinary affairs his him adjudge cannot government
his con- without offense
guilty of a criminal guilt of his proper factfinder
vinecinga certainty. utmost
with any doubt about remain Lest there reasonable- stature
constitutional hold standard, explicitly
doubt the ac- protects Clause Due Process upon except against conviction cused of ev- doubt reasonable beyond a
proof the crime constitute necessary to
ery fact charged. he is 1071-1072 361-864, at 90 S.Ct. U.S. omitted).
(Citations upon conviction Barger's reversed
We failed to the State determination
our molesting child guilt Barger's establish reasonable beyond a felony D a class this, learn on are shocked
doubt. the bicentennial celebrate year we officials public Rights, certain Bill of our reversal as a our action characterize
can con- attitude 'technicality.' Such
a mere
G27 *4 the termination of Best after the date of distributorship properly admitted? Beer's a termination letter that 4. Was properly ad- distributor sent to another mitted into evidence? the award of
5. Should damages be reversed because mitigate damages? allegedly failed to 6. the award of Was evidence? supported sufficient correctly instruct the trial court Did proof in a the burden of as to punitive damages action? Gifford, D. Terry, Ronald Stephen W. piercing justification there Was Daniels, Gary Clen- Indianapolis, Baker & veil; not, if was evi- corporate Miller's Harrell, Clendening Coyne, & dening, parent dence of the wealth of appellant-defendant. Bloomington, for Morris, ad- Philip properly corporation, *5 into and was mitted Cotner, Chapman, L. Ronald James R. to consider improperly instructed Andrews, Cotner, Mann & Wyle, A. Karen assessing pu- parent when wealth of appellee-plain- Bloomington, for Chapman, damages against Miller? nitive tiff. Judge. SHARPNACK, FACTS facts most favor- following are the Brewing appeals Miller Co. Defendant in of Best jury's verdict favor able to the Superior Monroe Court judgment Brewing is a Wisconsin Beers. Miller Co. Blooming- Beers of awarding plaintiff Best variety of beers. corporation which brews a $897,000.00 dam- ton, compensatory Inc. products in Indiana It distributes its $1,989,260.00 punitive dam- ages and sell independent distributors who through compensato- ages. affirm the award Best products to various retail outlets. judgment affirm the ry damages, and we it Miller distributor since had been a Beers it finds Miller liable for insofar as distributorship agree- into a first entered and remand for a damages, reverse but we the 1950 Miller in 1950. Under ment with to a new trial limited determination subsequent all the distribu- agreement, and damages. appropriate amount of parties, torship agreements between nonexclusive given the Best Beers was ISSUES in certain des- products Miller right to sell for our re- seven issues presents Miller ignated counties. expand and restate appeal. We view distributorship agree the 1983 Under issues as follows: these ment, primary gave Miller Best Beers 1. Was the award Mil distributing various responsibility for by sufficient evi- supported Brown, Monroe, and Owen products ler dence? give Best Miller could neither counties. correctly instruct trial court 2. Did the prod right to sell Beers the exclusive termi- distributor jury on the beer nor demand that in these counties ucts statute, 7.1-5-5-97 IND.CODE nation § only products distribute Best Beers , however, pro Indiana law 1 presence of Was evidence distributorships. Because exclusive hibits Bloomington market in the lines; Blooming- gave product another Beers dis- Best to Miller In addition products, Beverage right Co., Monroe distributor, ton Anheuser-Busch, Stroh, G. various tributed popular product, Miller Heileman, distribute its most did not beers. Miller and LaBatt right Lite. distribute all of grant Best Beers draught High Life rose time, marketing of grant exclusive inability to 1,810,912 slightly, from and then declined distributors distributorships, 1,271,859 in 1987. did, products barrels could, barrels distribute High Beers.2 Beers's Miller assigned During to Best this time Best the counties to or better than equivalent sales were Life satisfactory proved Beers Best average. national thir- products for over of Miller distributor inception of the distrib- From the ty years. some to contend with Best Beers had re- Beers never until Best utorship that were caused difficulties sales satisfactory rating from less than ceived Miller chose to eighties, In the Miller. 1984, however, previously In Miller. advertising while de- Lite in its emphasize Miller and Best relationship between good addition, Miller emphasizing High Life. began to sour. Beers ade- Best Beers with supply refused Nancy made advertising mate- January (p.o.s.) quate point-of-sale manager. At first its local area Best Beers did complaining that Catalane rials while performance Best Beers's in its p.o.s. rated materials adequate Catalane maintain she a few months adequate, but within fill Miller also refused to markets. retail highly unfavora- a series of began to issue manner re- Beers in the orders from Best and memo- instances, evaluations many ble by Best Beers. quested evaluations These unfavorable randa. products not send Miller would with a va- charged Best Beers memoranda request- quantities in the requested mismanage- alleged including riety of ills to be over- ed. This caused overage beer inability keep and an ment under- lines and product some stocked on market, alleged personal acts of on others. out stocked of Best *6 by one committed misconduct Best retailers with whom general, In attempts alleged employees, senior Beers's perform- pleased with dealt were Beers retail- employees to convince Beers by Best retailers, including one which ance. Some Life, al- High and stock Miller ers not to pay Best attempted to one time had at person- sales of Best Beers leged failures thirty dol- twenty to thousand Beers product Miller market adequately nel to checks, did, at Miller's worth of bad lars lines. Miller con- complaints with lodge request, 1984, prime Beers's of Best late one In The three written Beers. cerning Best Co., a Beverage sent competitors, Monroe concerning Best in Miller's file complaints Beverage Monroe Miller in which letter to 1985, July in drafted were all Beers High should be Life that Miller intimated a request from response to a apparently in Lite to Miller companion brand as a added employee. high Miller level distributorship." MILLER in an "all 1986, sent Best Miller October time, 6298). Monroe At (Record, p. termination. notice of preliminary a in Lite distributor the Miller Beverage was Miller Beers that Best notice informed This the area. distributorship terminate the intended to Beers's Best and Between alleged a host of agreement continually de- High Life sales of in,. performance: Best Beers's deficiencies High Beers's sales clined. al- market the 1) aggressively failure to Beers's de- modestly. Best Life increased by failing to product lines nationwide de- lotted a paralleled in sales crease accounts, failing to High in retail rotate stock popularity crease prod- and merchandising services provide High 1987 sales 1980 and Between Life. accounts, fail- delivery to retail uct by almost decreased in cans and bottles life marketing plans and comply with ing to 21,557,569 thirds, barrels from two Miller; made to commitments the same At 7,829,760 in 1987. barrels to transshipping. distributing beer outside practice of 2. The distributorship is known as counties assigned by transship- destroy remove and beer sold a balanced invento- 2) maintain failure to any attempt on pers. of stock on Miller did not make being periodically out ry by stocking overage oth- beer sold lines and not its own to remove product some ers; transshippers. 3) quality control maintain failure to remedy to steps Best Beers took several require- failing observe code-date to alleged by Miller in the termi- defects ments, failing properly to rotate stock a The distributor formulated nation letter. vehicles, warehouse, loca- and retail personnel to plan. cure It hired new sales tions, overage beer failing prevent to It drafted products. concentrate on Miller customers, failing re- reaching to from tracking overage beer and new forms for retailers, fail- from overage beer trieve in com- sought cooperation of retailers in the retail ing replace overage beer to problem. It batting overage outlets, failing destroy to ad- sought provide Miller with whatever found; beer when requested. ditional information Miller training pro- 4) failure to attend Miller. placated None of these efforts training pro- offer on site grams or to during Following period an extended grams; P attempted to cure its which Best Beers good will 5) preserve failure deficiencies, alleged Miller terminated community
by failing participate Shortly there- distributorship agreement. im- activities, failing convey positive after, distributorship to awarded retailers, products age of Miller per- Beverage, distributor whose Monroe cooperative, posi- failing to "maintain to, equivalent and in some formance was em- Miller and its tive attitude" toward to, Best Beers. ways inferior that of ployees; awarding to Monroe regular 6) provide deliveries failure to consolidating Beverage, Miller succeeded retailers; single product lines in a local all of its 7) proper placement, ensure failure to distributor. installation, p.o.s. display of Miller locations; and, finally, materials retail DECISION and be 8) cooperate with failure to Sup- *7 To I. The Evidence Was Sufficient failure to friendly employees, Miller to Awarding Jury's port The Verdict upon Mil- Miller with information provide Damages? Compensatory implement an request, and failure ler's the evidence was argues that program in Best Miller alcohol awareness jury's verdict support the insufficient to territory. primary Beers's for an unfair termi liable that Miller was keep overage attempted to Best Beers distributorship. Best Beers the nation of and at- its retailers' shelves off of beer Miller, evi the uncontroverted According to passed the which tempted to remove beer Best Beers failed that dence established on the retailers' while date restriction responsibilities quality control up live efforts, repre- Miller Despite its shelves. distributorship agreement, and under the re- overage beer in some sentatives found justified termi breach Beers's that Best normally serviced were accounts which tail the record convinces review of nation. Our overage time the At the by Best Beers. supported the evidence us that sufficient market, transship- in the was found beer regard. in this jury verdict actively selling in the area.3 pers also were supporting the evidence obligated to review was not When we Although Best Beers plaintiff in a in favor of a transship- jury a by verdict overage sold dispose of beer reweigh the evi- case, may neither distributorship agreement, civil the pers under the wit- credibility the of judge Beers to dence nor attempted to force Best Catalane communication, maintaining quality con- about not as concerned trans- a Miller As noted in 3. territory. quality primary a control their shipping to make trols outside tended transshippers are because more difficult market
688 fact, judgment its decision made Ind., Roberts v. nesses. Martin the court was trier of fact facts. As a only the evi- view We inferences con reasonable its own conclusions to reach and attendant entitled dence acts of of whether the cerning question re- will and we judgment, favor which a constituted in that case failure of distributor complete a only if there is verse distributorship agreement infer- or reasonable breach evidence substantial of justify termination element sufficient an essential supporting ence That it Nebraska law. agreement under case. Id. plaintiff's in one it evidence before chose to view the intro- essence, that it asserts understanding Ne way upon its based that compelling evidence both duced such support to way in no lends braska law transgres- intolerable overage was an beer jury should be Indiana proposition that an provisions quality control sion of the reaching opposite con from precluded that Best agreement and distributorship light conflicting facts clusion remain on overage beer allowed Beers Indiana law.4 could not that a reasonable the market "substantially that Best found have that, both of further find while it obligation every each and complied with regard, cited this cases required the contract" Brewery had under BeerMart, Co. Inc. v. Stroh sup- Cir.1986), Lafayette F.2d 409 and (7th number final instruction court's variety assertion, Miller cites Distributors, port of Anheuser- Inc. v. Beverage Mil- that general effect testimony to the F.Supp. (N.D.Ind.1982), Busch, Inc. signifi- ler considered Panhandle, value than of more are manage- Best Beers's problem, authority cant persuasive provides neither importance understood personnel ment evidence adduced that the proposition market, overage beer out keeping only to the logically can lead in this case sig- found a representatives and that materially conclusion in the mar- overage beer nificant amount agreement, breached termination ket. justifying thus BeerMart, Cir the Seventh agreement. three cases cites entry of trial court's cuit reversed the termi to the conclusion lead claims Stroh prohibiting injunction preliminary justified distributorship was nation of the distributor terminating BeerMart's from these have examined facts. We on these held that Stroh specifically ship. The court none of cases, found that we have terminating the distributor justified jury's compel the conclusion them undisputed ship agreement evi by sufficient unsupported verdict BeerMart inten established case, Brew cited The first dence. market overage beer on the placed tionally Beverage Co. Panhandle ing Co. *8 agree distributorship in violation CV85-0-700, is 1987), No. (D.Neb. July contrast, noted, the "In The court ment. the United States opinion of unpublished an only rea that the here found court [trial] of Nebraska the District for District Court con BeerMart's of the termination son for unpersua singularly find to be we willful, BeerMart's In Pon- Stroh tract with these circumstances. under sive 804 F.2d fraudulent, deceptive acts." and eight days of heard handle, court the trial agreement trier of were total then, sitting as the if we 412. Even testimony except any purpose any court opin- before unpublished cited that do not believe 4. We judicata, any collat- establishing of res the defenses this court cited to have been should ion of opinion Rules could not the case. Ind. estoppel, or law of that the We note eral event. 15(A)(3). except Procedure, related any in a case Given the purpose, Appellate Rule cited for parties causes of identity by courts virtue of the federal court and policies both our of Eighth the Dis- against the Circuit or Eighth by Circuit rules either the governed action, 28A(k); 8th Cir. Rule cases, Cir. 8th trict of Nebraska. opinions unrelated unpublished use of Further- Opinions, 3.§ of Plan for Publication more, opin- the Panhandle citation we find Miller's provide un- that appellate rules our own inappropriate. ion to be not to be are opinions this court published of of interpretation overage of beer a substantial number with the Seventh Circuit's statute, distributorship termination our retail establishments. stands for would conclude that BeerMart presented additional evidence Best proposition undisput- no more than the had not support the inference that violation of a ed evidence of an intentional distributorship contract. breached good distributorship agreement constitutes employees testified Best Beers's and owner under the statute. It cause for termination transshippers of caused much proposition for the that the does not stand overage problem in Best Beers's mar- beer per presence overage in a market of beer ket, prob- contributed to the and that Miller agree- justification for termination of an se by pressuring pushing Beers into lem Best ment. supply- more beer onto retailers and not Beverage, the district court Lafayette products in the ing Best Beers with Miller petition a distributor's also considered Owens, quantities ordered. Steve Best from injunction prohibiting brewer manager, personal Beers's testified that he terminating distributorship. After hear- ly presence in Best informed evidence, court, sitting ing the as territory overage prod- Beers's fact, that the had trier of concluded brewer distributors, sold but that ucts distributorship good to terminate the cause Miller took no action and did not force had sold a because the distributor substan- destroy selling distributors to remove and quantity overage tial beer after the beer selling product though it was the even overage and after had been identified duty do distributor's so. manager district ordered the brewer's presented jury Best Beers destroy the beer. The court distributor to theory up obligations had to its that it lived overage presence did not hold that the distributorship under the contract because Rather, per justification. beer is se keep it had made reasonable efforts found, interpreta- merely court based on its overage jury its market. The beer out of evidence, termination was tion of the quite apparently chose to believe Best
justified particular under the circumstances accept theory Beers's evidence and to case. choose, jury's right to the case. It was the trial, proceeded under the At presume will to disturb its and we presence overage theory that the mere on the appeal. choice on There is evidence in the market did not constitute a beer verdict, jury's supports record distributorship be- breach of the contract the verdict will stand. presence overage beer cause Properly II. In- Did Trial Court end, market was unavoidable. To this The Distribu- Jury Beers elicited the admissions of various struct On employees, including president vice torship Termination Statute? Koehler, regional sales for sales Thomas argues Miller next trial Zobel, Catalane, that manager Chris improperly instructed the on the court ongoing, constituted an statute, termination IC. extent, inevitable, problem. to some 7.1-5-5-9(2). in The trial court's final § addition, Dee, an Indiana beer distrib- Matt 8 read: struction number utor, him at a that Zobel told testified suit, At all times relevant to this law years two after Miller ter- conference some *9 there was in full force and effect an distributorship that minated the Best Beers read in relevant Indiana statute which 100,000 cases of had over part as follows: also in this state. Best for a brewer ... who It is unlawful ... employees that its present evidence able to permittee resale sells to a ... for ... purchase overage Miller able to had been this state to: within Bloomington market after products in the distributorship had been termi- (2) agreement its Miller or terminate an or Cancel nated, survey of the market and that a and a contract between a beer wholesaler beer, unfairly for the sale of and year after the termination found brewer taken one for reverse the trial court jury, and we will equities of regard for due without if the instruction give to a tendered failure party. the other statement of the is a correct instruction 6856). objected to this (Record, p. evidence, if it law, by the supported if it is final proposed its instruction, tendered and cover- repeat material adequately does not in- proposed The stead. in its instruction instructions, if the substan- and ed other read: struction be tendering party would rights tial of the times relevant at all in force There was give in- prejudiced by the failure Indiana In the State a statute herein County Commission- struction. Board part as follows: providing 477 N.E.2d Ind.App., termi- ers v. Arick Inequitable 7.1-5-5-9. I.C. to a party is not entitled 114. A is un- It prohibited. of contract nation instruction, not one that does repetitive or brewer a beer wholesaler lawful re- person will not state, correctly or other state the law. We or a brewer in this sells beer failing give this state who outside court for located the trial verse pur- for the in this state permittee instructions; ato will affirm we possible best resale within importation and pose of gave instructions trial court long as the as state to: correctly stated adequately which agreement or Stenberg an (2) & Co. or terminate Captain law. Cancel and a a beer wholesaler contract between 88, 97. Ind.App., 505 beer, unfairly and for the sale of brewer equities Lafayette regard for the due Miller cites BeerMart without instruc party. of its tendered support the other Beverage cases stand however, supersede that these not, Miller states tion. does The statute distributorship the Distributor that our language proposition plain for the right to fair any create Agreement. statute does provided under beyond has Thus, dealing you if find that view, any In Miller's substantially comply agreement. with terms of failed to Agree- agree the Distributor obligation under the terms compliance with compliance measure of the con- ment, you may find ment is the then fairly terminated. upon has been tract termination based and a statute agreement, 1508). disputes any provision of party (Record, p. Neither breach of some obli is of or not breach statute whether distributorship termination that the relationship and to the jury for its central gation placed before properly was real rea is the vehemently dis- the breach parties or not whether consideration. require termination, meets son for the however, is to to how the statute agree, for the regard Miller contends and due interpreted. fairness ment of tendered given have The text should Best Beers. trial court equities interpretation of "unlawful because it is instruction states statute is a instruction expressed the statute agreement ... terminate . to ... regard it should be due the law as unfairly and without statement correct case. of this the facts applied clearly indi party" equities of the properly court the trial Beers contends to the adherence than mere that more cates instruction give the tendered To the required. agreement is refused terms the law. stated improperly because Lafayette Bever that BeerMart extent position, support Miller's read age can be normally is entitled party A wrongly decided.5 they are read to instruction a tendered have recognized recently respects. court This vari- several interpretations court federal 5. The Beverage Corp. v. Alco- Barco these conflicts statute provisions of our ous (1991), Ind.App., 571 Beverage Commission we will holic problematic. As most proved to be have Beverage are below, Lafayette course, 308. Of explain BeerMart *10 law, the deci- considering questions of Indiana in court's decision with this arguably conflict govern, Beverage and, as Brewing of this state v. Central of the courts Co. sions Joseph Schlitz 566, 81, Ind.App. 359N.E.2d 172 publish Co. his dissent Judge noted in Hoffman 636 obligations under an up to all of its Brewing live Joseph Co. Cen In Schlitz uses the violation agreement if the brewer 81, Ind.App. Beverage
tral Co. to effect the subterfuge a mere order court considered this a the termination of question of whether improper purpose. termination for an under unlawful was addition, would have bound the instruction termination present to our predecessor if termination was fair jury to find the court had determined The trial statute.6 only one failed to meet it found Best Beers reason for ter expressed that the brewer's agreement even obligations of its under the alleged fail minating agreement-the impor- obligation particularly if the was comply cer with ure of the distributor tant, and, reference to substan- despite its mandated quality procedures control tain compliance, could have tial the instruction subterfuge to by the a mere brewer-was jury the termination mislead to believe the stat attempt to circumvent cover an though found Best have been fair even from either prohibiting a brewer utes only to have committed a minor distributorships or sub granting exclusive default. technical the distribu verting independence that the tendered instruc- To the extent affirming judgment tors. jury informed the tion would have court, wrote: the First District trial any provision for violation of termination Any of a brewer-wholesaler termination fair consid- agreement was without agreement be made in accordance must subterfuge, impor- ering the issues of Clearly, termination statute]. [the violated, mag- provision or the tance of the grounds a valid termination violation, an incorrect it was nitude genuine, must be under [the statute] The remainder of of the law. statement subterfuge. not a mere statute, the text of the the instruction was Ind.App. at Beverage, 172 Central in- in the trial court's which was covered added). (emphasis at 578-579 eight. The trial court did struction number court's find- concluded that the trial court in- any refusing not commit error was a mere ing that the stated reason struction. supported by sufficient evi- subterfuge was dence, pro- part because the distributor Overage Beer III. The Evidence Was Of tending to show that duced The Market The Termination After many distribu- that it had too brewer felt Ad- Distributorship Properly TheOf | in Indiana and handling products tors mitted? to a few operations narrow its wanted to Again relying on BeerMart selected distributors. Panhandle, argues the trial clear, then, may not that a brewer It is improperly admitted into evidence court scrutiny termination stat- escape under our survey post termination of 65 results of asserting valid merely by business ute territory the non retailers in the merely by termination or for the purpose primary responsibility exclusive area of committed asserting that the distributor by Best Beers had been serviced of one of the or technical breach minor the distributor the termination of before It agreement. would provisions of survey, taken be ship agreement. This inappropriate to instruct have been 18, 1989, 8, 1988, July and March tween fair if Best Beers
that the termination in 46 of the 65 retail revealed any obligation under comply with failed to argues er establishments. because, as Bever- agreement Central any issue survey were irrelevant to results held, agreement an termination of age failure despite the distributor's unfair in the case. 7-2-1-23(a)(2), repealed which was rehearing petition LC. addressing § 6. ing opinion Barco, Lafay- opinions replaced by in BeerMart I.C. 7.1-5-5-9 § "[The precedential Beverage] value have no more ette any or the trial other state opinions from than 571 N.E.2d
bench of Ohio."
G37
arguably
tend to be
propositions
The
with the
is invested
court
The trial
are that the
proved by
Crowley letter
the
the relevance
to determine
discretion
a sham in that it did
trial,
may re Best Beers letter was
and we
at
offered
evidence
(and
for
improper)
reason
only if it has abused
state the real
the trial court
verse
Ind.,
(1982),
Beers
and that
the Best
v. Hall
the termination
State
its discretion.
may
meaningfully
that the
inform Best
679,
find
letter did not
482 N.E.2d
in the ad
to take to
steps
its discretion
Beers of the
it needed
court abused
trial
rele
grounds
Assuming
on
of
the
evidence
avoid termination.
mission of
admits Crowley
the trial court
only where
vance
letter
to the Best
was identical
letter,
tendency,
no
no matter
logical
has
we see
connection
evidence which
Beers
no
fact or
prove a material
slight,
identity
to
and either of
how
between
and,
therefore,
relevance of
no
propositions
inference.
In re Pater
material
support a
(1989), Ind.App., 542
Tompkins
The mere
nity
Crowley letter to this case.
of
1009, 1013.
particular piece
of evidence
showing that a
to merit
is not sufficient
was irrelevant
Here,
not abuse
court did
the trial
however;
reversal,
Miller must also demon
admitting the results
discretion
prejudiced by
admis
it was
strate that
trial,
attempted to
Beers
Best
survey. At
Patrons
Noble
the evidence.
sion of
complied with the
substantially
that it
show
Corp.
City
v.
County
School
School
that,
ef-
despite its best
agreement,
but
675, 680-681,
(1963),244 Ind.
Kendallville
was
overage
beer
forts,
presence
718, 721;
v. Pre-Fab
Anderson
addition,
194 N.E.2d
Best
any
market.
inevitable
409 N.E.2d
Ind.App.,
Transit Co.
assert-
prove that Miller's
sought to
Ingram
n. 8.
State
agreement
terminating the
ed reason
Ind.,
supreme court
427 N.E.2d
subterfuge
allow Miller
a mere
was
erred in
the trial court
whether
considered
distributorship with
an all
establish
parts
trial
of a
evidence at
admitting into
evidence, by dem-
The
Beverage.
Monroe
plaintiff
between
agreement
loan
onstrating
there was
prej
contained
defendants which
dismissed
Beverage dis-
Monroe
market after
negli
concerning
Beers,
support both
tended to
udicial
statements
placed
state,
remaining defen
gence of
survey was rele-
The
theories.
of these
evi
finding the admission
dant.
not err
vant,
court did
the trial
most,
er
been,
harmless
evidence.
allowing it into
to have
dence
nation
Beverage Co.
court's
nation
tween
irrelevant
Miller as a
termination
were
mination
Beers.
cal.
IV. Was
To Another
There
not stated
them
alleges that
letter which
admission
Admitted
The two
stated
The Termination
were,
notice
roughly
letter sent
any issue
next
Distributor
Crowley letter was sent
in the
letters were
in the Best
however,
into
Austin,
Into
complains of
two
Crowley of the termi
evidence
Crowley letter that was
Crowley letter was
Evidence?
at trial.
by years
sent to
reasons for ter
Minn.
Improperly
agreement be
nearly
Letter Sent
Beers letter
prior to the
of a termi
the trial
Crowley
to Best
identi
ror,
Ingram,
ley letter-to
noted
that it
admit
taining conclusory and
ments
Erroncously
ed
If we
and its
merely
contributed
ample
not reversible
concerning the State's
in our
ample independent
#
assume,
those
was
court wrote:
concerning the State's
cumulative
liability
evidence-other
improper
[*]
discussion
nothing
parts
support the verdict
admitted
for the sake
error.
%
at 446-447.
in nature
for the
of Issue
evidence that
prejudicial
[*]
agreement
accident, there
than the Crow
negligence.
jury's
trial court
negligence
argument,
[*]
and thus
present-
I, there
verdict
As we
state-
con-
[*]
is
same
damage
issue. The
Beers letter
in the Best
stated
reasons
impact
respect to
may be said
Crowley letter.
in the
not stated
that were
*12
evidence is without con
punitive
unless the
the issue of
reverse
Crowley letter on
necessarily
the dis
leads to a conclusion
under
flict and
damages. As we determine
contrary
to that reached
the finder of
issue,
was
the evidence
cussion of the sixth
punitive
award of
support
See,
Ropak,
sufficient to
trial.
526 N.E.2d
fact at
if the
sufficient
damages.
It
remains
error,
ignored. Thus the
Crowley letter is
Here,
on
issue
the evidence conflicted
Crowley letter
any,
in
if
admission
mitigation.
expert,
Beers's
Profes-
Best
grounds
no
for
presents
harmless and
was
Jaffee,
reason-
testified that Best Beers
sor
reversal.7
expected
replace
its
ably could not be
Compensatory
competitors' prod-
Best Beers's
sales of
V. Should
Miller sales with
exclusively to
Best Beers sold
Be Reversed For
ucts because
Damage Award
retailers,
Mitigate Damages?
purchased
response
Failure To
who
particular products.
consumer demand
judg
argues
next
that
amounts of the
If it were to sell additional
damages
should be
ment for
de-
product in a market which
competitors'
to miti
Best Beers failed
reversed because
products,
Best Beers would
manded
in
damages
may
it
have
gate any
which
forcing
nothing more than
retailers
achieve
It notes
due to the termination.
curred
not sell and
products
to take
which would
that,
state,
mitigate
plaintiff
must
in this
eventually would have to be de-
which
Ropak, Inc.
damages.
County
Parke
v.
expense
they
732,
stroyed at Best Beers's
when
(1988),
740. Mil
Ind.App., 526 N.E.2d
overage.
jury
was entitled to
became
that,
it
concludes
because
ler
essence
suggesting
that
presented some evidence
and,
testimony,
believe
or all
recouped
have
some
Best Beers could
verdict,
supports
are not
we
quantities
by selling additional
of its losses
judgment
entitled to reverse
based
brewers,
products
verdict.
to find that
was constrained
Damage
VIL.
The Punitive
Award
Was
damages,
mitigating
either succeeded
Evidence?
Supported By Sufficient
compensable
no
case it suffered
which
that, for a number
Miller contends
mitigate,
damages,
it failed to
damages.
reasons,
it was not entitled
which case
on the record is
the evidence
support
jury's
determi
insufficient to
fatally
argument
Miller's conduct merited
nation that
ignores the evidence fa
flawed because
damages. Miller
imposition
punitive
in favor of
jury's verdict
vorable to the
in
punitive damages
are
first asserts
trial, the bur
Beers. At
bore
mere
appropriate
in actions based on the
Beers could
proving either that Best
den of
contract,
it further asserts
of a
breach
not or that Best
mitigated and did
have
damages may only be award
reduced the
mitigate and thus
Beers did
actions where there is evi
ed in contract
Miller's actions.
damage incurred due to
accompanied
dence that
breach
Industries,
Wedge
Prod
Inc.
Indiana
oppressive
conduct.
some sort
419,
(1982),
ucts,
Ind.App., 430
Inc.
evidence,
then reviews
Placements,
428; Endsley v. Game-Show
that the distributor
contends demonstrates
768,
Ind.App., 401
Ltd.
proper
agreement was terminated
ship
a claimed
reviewing
jury verdict for
addition,
purposes.
Miller con
business
neither
mitigate damages, we will
failure
at most
the evidence establishes
tends
credibil
judge
nor
reweigh the evidence
agreement due
terminated the
that Miller
v. Merchants
witnesses. Hirsch
ity of the
any
not due to
good
dispute,
faith
to a
497,
Ind.App.
Bank
National
Finally, Miller makes
oppressive purpose.
836. Whenever
336 N.E.2d
argument
that an award of
will not
negative judgment, we
review
lay
for its
admissibility
a different
foundation
Beers can
retrial
the issue
7. On
admission,
be inadmissible.
may again
it would
Crowley
arise. Unless Best
letter
convincing
by clear and
proven
damages
our
violate
would
this case
evidence.
open courts.8
guarantee
constitutional
*13
of
(1989), Ind.App., 539
an award
justify
Markle
In order
v.
Emerson
added) (citing
action,
35,
(emphasis
40-41
in a contract
N.E.2d
damages
punitive
something more than
(1988),
must show
v. Robertson
Chevrolet
plaintiff
Bud
Wolf
also,
Bev
135);
Nehi
by
Ind.,
the defen
see
N.E.2d
a contract
519
of
mere breach
(1987),
509
Ind.App.,
and
produce clear
must
v.
dant;
erage Co.
Sims
plaintiff
tending
1125,
to establish
1129.9
convincing
N.E.2d
evidence
malice,
acted with
breaching party
that
determining whether
Thus,
oppressiveness,
or
fraud,
negligence,
gross
finding Miller liable
jury verdict
of law or
view
merely mistaken
not a
but
suffi
by
supported
damages was
punitive
over-zeal
judgment,
fact,
of
error
honest
evidence,
only to the
may look
we
cient
"non-iniq
other
ousness, negligence, or
this
In
verdict.
supporting the
evidence
Indem
Travelers
failing."
uitous human
evidence.
of such
case,
there is a wealth
Ind.,
(1982),
442
Armstrong
v.
nity Co.
prove that
sought
Beers
Best
Amoco Oil
349, 862;
v.
Dahlin
N.E.2d
806,
agreement
810.
N.E.2d
App., 567
(1991),Ind.
terminated
Corp.
award,
purpose.
damage
improper
for an
punitive
faith
of a
in bad
review
On
height
improper purpose
and
employ some
faith
however,
not
of bad
we do
Proof
damages.
overreaching
punitive
award of
support
review or
of
standard
can
ened
recently
103,
Rather,
Judge
App. at
as
359
Ind.
serutiny.
Beverage,
172
Central
evi
produced
Best Beers
580.
at
wrote:
and
employees Catalane
that Miller
dence
review
appellate
standard
The
of
con
statements
made false
O'Neal
Calvin
punitive
issue
on the
sufficiency
of
efforts and
sales
Beers's
cerning Best
greater
neither
impose
damages should
employees.
Beers's
Best
of
conduct
nor lesser
scrutiny
judicial
deference
letter
in its termination
accusations
made
review
than in
jury determinations
by Cata-
supported
even
not
were
ad- which
questions.
sufficiency
of
memoranda.
reports
evaluation
evi-
lane's
sufficiency of
of
issue
dressing the
toler
that
Beers demonstrated
Best
puni-
judgment
a
dence,
affirm
we will
ter
market after
on the
only
pro-
overage beer
if, considering
ated
damages
tive
distributorship os
minating the Best
infer-
the reasonable
evidence
bative
committed
Best Beers
tensibly because
it,
weighing ev-
without
supporting
ences
stay in
letting
cardinal sin
credibility, a
assessing witness
or
idence
evidence
produced
market.
find such
could
of fact
trier
reasonable
constitution
that our
damages,
we hold
summary disposition.
with
argument merits
This
8.
damage
award
punitive
prohibit a
damage
does not
punitive
large
that
asserts
cases.
similar
or in
dispute
case
keep parties to a contract
will
awards
court,
would
which
taking
case
their
from
the standard
with
approach is consistent
supports its
1
12.
It
This
§
art.
9.
Const.
Ind.
violate
sufficiency questions
review
by
we
case of
which
single
from the
statement
argument
a
in which
the cases
County
which are
Commissioners
cases,
Board
criminal
ex rel.
State
v.
proof
meet
761,
must
478,
burden of
party
94 N.E.
Ind.
Laramore
proving
burden
stringent burden-the
argument
most
support
to an
no
lends
case
supreme
Our
doubt.
guilt beyond a reasonable
avail-
damage
are not
awards
large punitive
that
that,
is
trier of fact
Laramore,
held
court has
the su-
actions.
contract
able in
weight
the evidence
judge of the
the sole
fees
certain
whether
considered
preme court
cases,
may not
appellate courts
our
criminal
a then
pursuant
county
sheriff
charged
Smedley v.
appeal.
reweigh
on
the evidence
jus-
that
admonition
existing
violated
statute
776,
Ind.,
we
782.
If
pur-
State
freely
without
"administered
tice
re-
heightened
standard
employ
may
not
at 761.
94 N.E.
at
175 Ind.
chase."
liberty
case,
the life
where
criminal
in a
view
violate the
did not
statute
the fee
court held
may
certainly
jeopardy,
put
person is
aof
circum-
in some
conceded
constitution,
but
in a
of review
heightened standard
employ a
might
art.
violate
high
overly
court fees
stances
case,
money
in-
damages
where
punitive
Laramore,
at
94 N.E.
175 Ind.
12.
§1
volved.
nothing
do
opinion had
The court's
ing punitive damages, and we conclude
not rate
said that she would
that Catalane
instruction was not errone
satisfactory
the trial court's
performance
Best Beers's
adopted
supreme court first
ous. Our
appeared
favorable details
no matter what
proof for
convincing burden of
clear and
Beers showed
profile.
damages
Indemnity
Travelers
comments
unfavorable
Miller solicited
(1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d
Armstrong
retailers in the dis
from
Co.
about Best Beers
Travelers,
supreme
court va
territory. Finally, Best Beers
tributorship
cated an
be
award
Miller disliked
submitted
fraud,
allegations of
"[pllaintiff's
cause the
distributors, that
among Miller
competition
*14
simply have
oppressive
deceit and
conduct
single
territo
preferred
distributor
Miller
convincing
by
not been
clear and
borne out
disapproving such
despite Indiana law
ries
This court
evidence."
(1980), Ind. 274 punitive dam plaintiff seeks case and should 571. Where into the matters corporation, how subsidiary ages against a admitted. have been parent ever, the wealth Financial, 670 S.W. Liberty inadmissible irrelevant corporation is pierced, then was not If the veil the cor prove that plaintiff can unless the not relevant Philip Morris was wealth of pierced because porate veil should any pur- not be considered and could ego mere alter subsidiary was but however, court, allowed The trial pose. Health parent. HCA instrument financial put Philip Morris's Best Beers to Services, Bank Com v. National Inc. and instructed into evidence statement 531-532, 525, 745 Ark. merce Philip Morris's jury that it could consider 124; Dominick's 120, Walker S.W.2d damages. The assessing punitive wealth in App.3d Ill. Foods, Inc. Finer counsel, in his urged by plaintiff's 1217; Liberty 649-650, 415 N.E.2d He punish Philip Morris peroration, Corp. v. Management Financial Benefi $283,767,- they if awarded the told them that (1984), Mo. Corp. Processing Data cial seeking, punitive damages he was 40, 51-52. App., 670 S.W.2d doing Philip Morris in so punishing "you're quite similar to to be find this case deterring companies those who you're There, plaintiff Iaberty Financial. they] cannot size grew gigantic [so of contract in breach filed an action through bull to wander like a be allowed corporate de- against the misrepresentation they to." doing what want shop china wholly Bencom, fendant, which was 7042-7043). (Record, pp. *16 Corp. The subsidiary of Beneficial owned most here that was proved What was of mak- in the was business plaintiff, who of veil Beers on the issue favorable to Best to loans, subscribe decided to ing consumer Miller was owned piercing was service offered processing data an on-line had and that Miller written Philip Morris per- did not system the When Bencom. in it stated to Best Beers which letter expected, it filed suit plaintiff as the form commitment, Philip that of "continuing damages Ben- from sought punitive you with provide to trial, Incorporated, offered the plaintiff Morris At the com. mutually Beneficial into evi- to achieve our of additional tools financial statement far evidence falls goals." That desired economic worth prove Bencom's dence to Ben- permit evidence of though proved it had direct need be even of what short court ad- enough The trial sub- worth available. lacks com's veil. It piercing of the evidence over into mitted the statement reweighed on the weighed or stance to be plaintiff used the state- and the objection, issue. any punitive jury the argue ment in admit the error cannot find We account take into should award Benefi- statement Philip Morris financial ting the compensa- jury awarded worth. cial's spe court the trial to be harmless punitive award damages, it did not tory but it could jury the cifically instructed damages. the assets "the amount of consider compensatory appealed Bencom Companies, Philip Morris earnings of trial court award, part that the alleging in damages. assessing punitive Inc....." admitting error prejudicial committed 1582). invited (Record, This instruction p. statement. the Beneficial into against Miller damages to assess jury agreed, writing: appeals of The court wealth, and the Philip Morris's based damages awarded were punitive no That plainly erroneous. See is thus instruction jury consequence; particular no is of Operating Co. Hotel Ramada Shaffer that re- with the notion clearly left was 1264, 1271. Ind.App., 576 any in- pay verdict available sources any error argues that parent, Best Beers also dollars of the billion cluded is Morris statement admitting Philip On the corporation. non-party, but punitive amount of harmless because time, we con- us record before
G43 punitive dam- question of trial on the Philip Mor- new compared to damages is small wealth, compared supportable ages. is but ris's true that the verdict It is
Miller's wealth.
of
argument that the amount
Best Beers'
damages might be
$1,989,000
punitive
can
damages which were awarded
punitive
oper-
Miller's 1988
up against
supportable
upon the evidence of
solely
be sustained
$190,140,000
or assets
ating profit of
posi-
Company's financial
Brewing
1988 consol-
$1,622,886,000
as the
as well
Assuming
there
legally
is
sound.
tion
earnings
Philip Morris
net
for
idated
the financial
admitting
evidence on
error
$86,960,000,000.
$2,337,000,000
or assets
Morris, it would be
Philip
harm-
worth
are, in
(All
the words
sums involved
opinion. The amount
my
less at best
Illinois,
money".)
"real
from
late senator
comfortably
fits
punitive damages awarded
However,
speculate what
we cannot
it re-
seope of the evidence as
within
proper-
if it had been
jury might have done
Company.
Brewing
to Milier
lates
punitive
A verdict
ly instructed.
Id.
based on
damages against a defendant
re-
things,
standard of
Among other
our
plain error and
else is
of someone
wealth
requires
appellant to demonstrate
view
issue of what
retry
only cure is
error,
not been
which I feel has
reversible
damages
appropriate.
amount of
done,
is to
and that the court on review
presumptions
indulge in all reasonable
CONCLUSION
judgment of the trial
support the
record, and we
have reviewed
v. Hammond Clinic
Raymundo
court.
supports
jury's
find that the evidence
(1983), Ind.App.,
ed assessing punitive dam- Philip Morris error could that the trial court's ages, and improper assess an have lead Walther, WALTHER, Joyce D. Donald D. damages against Miller punitive amount Yeiter, Yeiter, Terry Bren Phyllis L. J. We therefore parent's wealth. based Nancy Yeiter, L. Yeiter and Ronald da damage verdict affirm Yeiter, Appellants-Defendants Jean damage punitive affirm the respects all it finds Miller liable insofar as verdict However, we damages. punitive reverse Miller, Appellant/Intervenor- Lynn M. assessed insofar as it the verdict Defendant, $1,989,260, and damages in the amount limited to the new trial remand for a BANK, proper amount issue INDIANA LAWRENCE damages. Appellee-Plaintiff. PART, IN IN REVERSED AFFIRMED 43A05-9103-CV-89. No.
PART, AND REMANDED. Indiana, Appeals of Court District. C.J., Fifth RATLIFFE, concurs. ROBERTSON, J., part and concurs in 15, 1991. Oct. opinion. separate part
dissents 25, 1991. Rehearing Denied Nov. part ROBERTSON, concurring in Judge, dissenting part. portion to that respectfully dissent
I for a remands opinion which majority