In the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, plaintiffs sued the Estate of Gordon D. Zuck (and others not concerned in this appeal), alleging fraud on the part of Zuck prior to his death. Judgment against the estate included compensatory and punitive damages, punitive damages being recoverable in a fraud action in Alabama.
Loch Ridge Cons. Co. v. Barra,
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not, under the laws of Alabama, punitive damages may be awarded when it appears that the wrongdoer died before the entry of judgment. 1
In almost all jurisdictions it is held that punitive damages may not be awarded against the estate of a wrongdoer who has died prior to the entry of judgment.
Dalton v. Johnson,
In the case of
Meighan v. Birmingham Terminal Co.,
The controlling determination of Alabama law by the Supreme Court of that State is now to be found in the case of
Shirley v. Shirley,
We are not cited to, and diligent effort has not disclosed, any Alabama case supporting the award of punitive damages
in addition to
compensatory damages as was done in the case before us. However, the absence of such a prior decision does not mean that the question is an open one in that State. If there were to be survival of a wrongful death action in Alabama, there must be survival of a punitive damage claim against an estate, because, as noted, such damages are the only damages recoverable in such an action. It would be conceivable that, in
Shirley,
the Supreme Court of Alabama had merely given effect to the survival of a wrongful death action by permitting recovery of punitive damages limited to wrongful death actions had it not been for that court’s having met the issue squarely on rehearing in the
Shirley
case. The opinion on rehearing makes it clear that, in Alabama, punitive damages are viewed as accomplishing not only punishment to the wrongdoer (which would be unavailable in the event of the death of the
*645
wrongdoer prior to judgment) but also as providing deterrents to others similarly situated from taking steps of the character condemned. Thus, held the State court (
Under the law of the State, the District Court was authorized to assess punitive damages against the appellant estate and the judgment appealed from it is
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. In view of our decision on the merits, we do not reach the problems, if any, presented by the failure of the defendant-appellant to have raised this issue in the trial court by motion to strike the prayers for punitive damages or otherwise.
