Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed a jury verdict awarding Joel Lubritz damages for breach of an oral agreement to share profits equally and for breach of fiduciary duty by the other physicians involved in Nevada Preferred Professionals. The court held that incorporation did not necessarily invalidate the parties’ oral agreement, that sufficient evidence supported the fiduciary-duty finding, and that punitive damages could be based on the fiduciary breach. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees under NRCP 68.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether incorporation rendered the parties' oral agreement to share profits and losses equally legally invalid.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the appellants breached the oral agreement by reducing Lubritz's distributions.
- Whether the appellants breached a fiduciary duty by failing to disclose the unequal distributions to Lubritz.
- Whether breach of fiduciary duty arising from the parties' partnership relationship constituted a separate tort supporting punitive damages.
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported a punitive damages award based on express or implied malice.
- Whether the amount of the judgment finally obtained exceeded the offers of judgment for purposes of attorney's fees under NRCP 68.
Holdings
- The parties' oral agreement was not invalid per se merely because they later incorporated their business; parties may use the corporate form while retaining an agreement governing their mutual rights and profit-sharing relationship.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that the appellants breached the oral agreement by reducing Lubritz's payments below his equal one-fifth share.
- Partners owe one another a fiduciary duty of full disclosure of material facts concerning partnership affairs, and the appellants breached that duty by concealing the unequal distributions from Lubritz.
- A breach of fiduciary duty arising from the partnership relationship is a separate tort upon which punitive damages may be based, even when the parties' duties also have contractual underpinnings.
- Clear and convincing evidence supported punitive damages because the appellants acted with express malice or, alternatively, implied malice through despicable conduct in conscious disregard of Lubritz's rights.
- The district court properly awarded attorney's fees because the judgment finally obtained exceeded the offers of judgment, including damages that accrued after the offers were made.
Key quotations
“Thus, the parties in this case are not subject to the writing requirement of NRS 78A.080 because in 1983 they had no notice of such a requirement.” (864)
“Therefore, the appellants owed Lubritz a fiduciary duty of full disclosure of material facts relating to the partnership affairs.” (865)
“Therefore, we conclude that the breach of fiduciary duty arising from the partnership agreement is a separate tort upon which punitive damages may be based.” (867)
“Lubritz's four offers were offers to settle the entire case, including uncertain future claims.” (868)
Factual background
Five physicians formed Nevada Preferred Professionals and orally agreed to make equal investments and share profits and losses equally. They later incorporated the organization, but evidence showed that they continued to treat their relationship as one of equal partners, made equal distributions for the first six years, and did not consistently operate according to the corporate bylaws. After Lubritz resigned from the board and performed fewer services, the other four physicians reduced his distributions without informing him, while paying themselves larger amounts. The jury found that the unequal distributions breached the parties' oral agreement and the appellants' fiduciary duty and supported punitive damages.
Procedural history
Lubritz sued the four appellants for his alleged share of Nevada Preferred Professionals' distributions. A jury found liability for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and awarded $195,942.17 in compensatory damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, and $75,000 in attorney's fees. The district court denied the appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and awarded attorney's fees; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.