Nationwide Seeks to Reduce Former Employee's $42 Million Award

Christine Lucarell sued her former employer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance, alleging Nationwide stopped funding her Boardman agency in April 2009 even though she was enrolled in the company's agency executive program. She also claimed the company forced her to quit in July 2009 by creating unacceptable working conditions. She says Nationwide told her she could earn more than $200,000 in annual commissions by participating in and successfully completing the program.

The civil suit alleged that Nationwide used “unsustainable” monthly production quotas to cease funding of and terminate about 90 of its agency executive agencies. Nationwide fired back, denying Lucarell's allegations and stating that she was not an agency employee but rather an independent contractor.

Lucarell filed the suit in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court in Ohio. She was seeking $5 million in compensatory damages and an undetermined amount of punitive damages but won a larger verdict when the court ruled in her favor in November 2012. In total, the jury awarded her $5.7 million for lost profits, $1 million in emotional damages, $100,000 for retaliation and $36 million for punitive damages, corresponding to about one-twelfth of Nationwide's annual net profits.

Nationwide is asking that the reward amount, a hefty $42 million, be reduced. The company's attorney filed motions stating the amount needs to be limited due to Ohio's tort reform statutes. He is arguing for a $350,000 cap on compensatory damages, reducing the overall award to $10 million. 

Nationwide's attorneys say several past cases show the Ohio Supreme Court find lawsuits originating in the workplace falling under tort law and thus requiring appropriate award caps. Lucarell's attorneys disagree, stating that the tort-reform statutes do not apply in work-related matters. They believe Nationwide's attorney's example cases do not fall under “good law” because they have been reversed or fall under versions of tort reform no longer in practice today.

There is discussion surrounding possible staying of the original verdict until the judge has ruled on all motions filed by Nationwide. It has not yet been decided whether Nationwide will be made to hold bond to insure payment of the award until after all court proceedings have ended. The court will hear oral arguments on the motions beginning in mid-February 2013.