Lexplug logoLexplug

Walkovszky v. Carlton

New York Court of Appeals
Unknown (1966)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual stockholder cannot be held personally liable for the torts of a corporation merely because the corporation is undercapitalized or part of a larger fragmented corporate structure. To pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability, a plaintiff must allege that the stockholder was conducting business in their individual capacity while disregarding corporate formalities.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Walkovszky was severely injured when he was run down by a taxicab.
  • The taxicab was owned by the Seon Cab Corporation and driven by its employee, Marchese.
  • Defendant Carlton was a stockholder in Seon Cab and nine other similar corporations.
  • Each of Carlton's ten corporations owned only two taxicabs.
  • Each taxicab was insured for only the minimum amount of automobile liability insurance ($10,000) required by New York law.
  • Walkovszky alleged that the ten corporations were operated as a single entity with regard to financing, supplies, repairs, employees, and garaging.
  • Walkovszky claimed this multiple corporate structure was an unlawful attempt to defraud the public by minimizing the assets available to injured parties.

Procedural Posture:

  • Walkovszky (plaintiff) sued Carlton and his corporations in the New York Supreme Court, Richmond County (trial court).
  • Carlton (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him for failure to state a cause of action.
  • The trial court granted Carlton's motion to dismiss.
  • Walkovszky (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, finding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action.
  • Carlton (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an individual stockholder of a corporation personally liable for the corporation's torts when the corporation is part of a larger fragmented enterprise, is undercapitalized, and carries only the minimum required liability insurance?


Opinions:

Majority - Fuld, J.

No. A stockholder is not personally liable for a corporation's torts simply because the business was structured to limit liability. The court distinguished between two theories for piercing the corporate veil: 'enterprise liability,' where one corporation in a larger entity can be held liable for the debts of another, and holding an individual stockholder personally liable. To hold a stockholder personally liable, the plaintiff must allege that the stockholder is using the corporation to conduct personal business, disregarding corporate formalities, and commingling personal and corporate funds. The complaint here fails to make such allegations; it only alleges that the business is fragmented and undercapitalized. Since complying with the statutory minimum insurance requirement is not fraudulent, and since there is no allegation that Carlton was conducting business in his individual capacity, the complaint fails to state a cause of action against him personally. The remedy for inadequate insurance coverage lies with the Legislature, not the courts.


Dissenting - Keating, J.

Yes. The individual stockholder should be held personally liable. The privilege of limited liability should not be absolute, especially when it is abused to the detriment of the public. The defendant intentionally undercapitalized these corporations for the specific purpose of avoiding responsibility for injuries that were certain to arise from operating a large taxi fleet. This scheme defeats the clear public policy of New York, which is to ensure that innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents are compensated for their injuries. The statutory minimum insurance was intended as a floor for recovery, not a shield for shareholders who organize their businesses in a way that makes them judgment-proof while they profit from a dangerous enterprise. When a corporation is vested with a public interest and is organized with insufficient capital to meet its foreseeable liabilities, the participating shareholders should be held personally responsible.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strength of the corporate veil in New York and sets a high bar for imposing personal liability on shareholders for corporate torts. The court clearly separates the concept of 'enterprise liability' (horizontal piercing between related corporations) from 'alter ego' liability (vertical piercing to reach a shareholder). By rejecting undercapitalization alone as a basis for piercing, the decision forces plaintiffs to plead specific facts showing that a shareholder ignored corporate formalities and used the corporation as a personal instrument. This makes it more difficult for tort victims to recover from individual shareholders of thinly capitalized companies, placing the onus on the legislature to mandate higher insurance levels if public protection is deemed inadequate.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Walkovszky v. Carlton (1966) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Walkovszky v. Carlton