White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc.
166 N.C. App. 283, 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 1780, 603 S.E.2d 147 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intentional torts, such as fraud and conversion, when the torts are committed through the very activities and functions the employee was authorized to perform, even if the employee's acts were for personal gain.
Facts:
- Consolidated Planning, Inc. ('Consolidated') employed Robert W. White as an account executive and Senior Vice President, authorizing him to handle client funds and service accounts.
- Robert White's father, John W. White ('plaintiff'), a retiree with no prior investment experience, purchased annuity and life insurance products through his son, whom Consolidated considered a customer.
- Beginning in 1995, Robert White, suffering from a gambling addiction, began systematically misappropriating funds from his father's accounts without his knowledge.
- To perpetrate the theft, Robert White changed his father's mailing address on the annuity accounts to his own office address at Consolidated, which prevented the plaintiff from receiving official correspondence.
- Robert White then forged his father's signature on withdrawal requests, stealing over $300,000 from the annuity accounts held at Keyport and Provident.
- To conceal the misappropriation, Robert White provided his father with fictitious account statements, some on Consolidated letterhead, and convinced his parents to let him handle their taxes, which he then failed to file.
- Robert White also took out unauthorized loans against his father's Guardian life insurance policy, submitting the requests through Consolidated for processing.
- The plaintiff did not learn of the thefts until April 2001, when his wife contacted Keyport directly and was informed that the annuity accounts were almost entirely depleted.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. White filed a lawsuit in trial court on August 9, 2001, against Consolidated Planning, Inc., his son Robert White, and several other corporate defendants.
- A default judgment was entered against Robert White.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against Consolidated for negligent hiring, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud, among others.
- Plaintiff settled with all other corporate defendants, leaving Consolidated as the sole remaining defendant.
- The trial court subsequently granted Consolidated's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims, including negligence, conversion, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed both the dismissal order and the summary judgment order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, with Consolidated (appellee) as the responding party.
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 employer vicariously liable for an employee's intentional torts, such as fraud and conversion, when the employee uses their authorized job functions to commit the torts for personal gain?
Opinions:
Majority - Geer, Judge.
Yes. An employer may be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of its employee if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. The employee's acts fall within the scope of employment when the fraud is committed by exploiting the very functions and authority the employer granted to the employee. The court relied on the precedent set in Thrower v. Coble Dairy Products Coop., Inc., which held an employer liable for a salesman's embezzlement scheme because the fraud was committed while performing authorized duties like taking orders and filling out invoices. Here, Robert White's torts occurred through his authorized activities, such as giving investment advice, completing customer forms, processing loans, and administering customer accounts. Consolidated put Robert White in a position that enabled him, while apparently acting within his authority, to commit the fraud. The court distinguished this from cases where an employee's job merely provides access or opportunity to commit a tort, rather than the tort being committed through the performance of the job's precise tasks. Therefore, a jury could find that Robert White was acting within the scope of his employment, making Consolidated potentially liable for his fraud, conversion, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'scope of employment' doctrine for intentional torts within the financial services industry. It reinforces that an employer cannot easily escape vicarious liability for an employee's fraud when the employee uses their delegated authority and job functions as the very instrument of the tort. The ruling broadens employer responsibility beyond mere negligence, signaling that firms can be held liable for an employee's purely self-serving criminal acts if those acts are intertwined with their authorized duties. This precedent makes it more difficult for financial firms to argue that an employee's embezzlement is a personal 'frolic and detour' when the embezzlement is accomplished using the tools of the trade provided by the employer.
