Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Osborne

• Decision Date: 23 November 1945
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 334.
• Parties: MUTUAL SAV. LIFE INS. CO. v. OSBORNE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So.2d 867

247 Ala. 252

MUTUAL SAV. LIFE INS. CO. v. OSBORNE.

8 Div. 334.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1945

S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for petitioner.

C L. Watts, of Huntsville, opposed.

FOSTER Justice.

The matters considered by the Court of Appeals in their opinion in this case do not seem to need discussion on our part except in one respect in view of what was held on two former appeals in the same case. That is, as to whether a claim in an action for deceit under circumstances of this case bears interest.

On that general proposition it may be said that this Court has adopted the view that in tort actions, such as for damages on account of injury sustained to property, a claim will bear interest if it has an ascertainable money value, and the amount of that value measures the extent of recovery. Atlanta B. Air Line Rwy. Co. v. Brown, 158 Ala. 607 48 So. 73; Mobile & O. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 219 Ala 238 (21-22), 121 So. 722; Alabama Power Co. v. Allen, 218 Ala. 416, 118 So. 662.

A statement of that principle would exclude the right to interest in tort actions on other claims, and especially where the claim embraces punitive damages. So that we may say that in answer to the question of whether in this case the plaintiff was entitled to interest prior to judgment depends upon whether or not his cause of action as set forth in the complaint and as proven justifies a recovery of punitive damages.

Punitive damages are recoverable in this action for deceit when defendant is guilty of 'gross fraud,' but not otherwise. Southern Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Dinsmore, 225 Ala. 550, 144 So. 21; Southern Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Bryant, 225 Ala. 527, 144 So. 367.

In the case of Cartwright v. Hughes, 226 Ala. 464, 147 So. 399, we sustained without discussion a claim for interest in an action of deceit where the plaintiff had been induced by fraud to part with his money in the purchase of property without proof of matters which justify punitive damages although one count of the complaint contained such allegations.

It is our view that if the complaint does not contain those allegations, or if it does and the evidence fails to support them so that the ordinary measure of damages must be given effect, interest should be added from the time of the commission of the tort. When applying that question to the one at hand, we must determine, first, whether the complaint contains allegations which justify a recovery for punitive damages or for any damages not measured by a pecuniary standard.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals does not set forth the complaint or its substance as applicable to this question. In reviewing an opinion of the Court of Appeals on certiorari, it has been the policy of this Court to look at the original record for a more complete understanding of the matters which are discussed in the opinion, but not for the purpose of settling any disputed question of fact or of reviewing the Court of Appeals in respect to its finding of facts. Cranford v. National Surety Co., 231 Ala. 636, 166 So. 721.

It would be strictly in accordance with our rule in this case to examine the record for the purpose of seeing whether or not the...