Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

are awarded; the Court rejected an argument that an award of compensatory damages on one
count of a multi-count complaint could support an award of punitive damages as to other
counts. Id. As the Court noted, “one of the purposes of punitive damages is to punish the
wrongs of the defendant. The requirement of a compensatory damages foundation protects
defendants from being punished for acts that the trial court determines the defendant did not
commit.” Id. at 663.
In this case, the Circuit Court concluded that punitive damages were “clearly not
appropriate,” though that court did not explain its conclusion. On appeal, the Court of
Special Appeals affirmed that conclusion on the basis that no further compensatory damages
could be awarded, as Mr. Frazier had already been tendered the full amount of his actual
damages. Citing Caldor and similar cases, the intermediate appellate court reasoned that the
tender eliminated the foundation of compensatory damages that is a prerequisite to an award
of punitive damages. That extrapolation of the rationale of Caldor, however, is unwarranted.
An issue is moot if, at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing
controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy that the court
can provide. Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County School Bus Contractors Ass’n., 286
Md. 324, 327, 407 A.2d 749 (1979) (dismissing an appeal as moot). Courts generally decide
whether a matter is moot as a result of a tender of relief by examining whether the tender
encompasses all of the relief to which a party may be entitled. Compare Holstein v. City of
Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 1994) (defendant’s offer to pay all costs incurred by
plaintiffs as a result of admittedly illegal towing of plaintiffs’ vehicles meant that “there is
18