## Facts

- James and Joann Forster bought lakefront property at the Lake of the Ozarks from Patrick and Janet Boss.
- The Bosses represented that the Forsters could obtain a boat-dock permit for the shoreline in front of the property.
- At the time of sale, the Bosses had an existing, conflicting boat-dock permit that prevented issuance of the permit the Forsters were promised.
- Union Electric Company, the entity controlling permits, denied the Forsters’ permit application because of the Bosses’ permit.
- The Bosses also promised to remove their swim dock from in front of the transferred property but did not do so.
- The Forsters sued for fraud (permit representation) and breach of contract (failure to remove swim dock).
- A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages for fraud and compensatory damages for breach of contract.
- The district court also granted permanent injunctive relief requiring swim-dock removal and relief effectively securing the Forsters’ boat-dock permit through Union’s stipulation.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri remedies law permits plaintiffs to keep both compensatory damages measured by the loss of dock-related rights and an injunction that restores those same rights, resulting in double recovery.
2. Whether benefit-of-the-bargain fraud damages can be combined with reparative injunctive relief without providing more than one full compensation for the same injury.
3. Whether punitive damages for fraud may be retained if plaintiffs must elect between compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- Affirmed the jury’s liability findings and rejected the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the compensatory damage amounts.
- Held that awarding both full compensatory damages (fraud and contract) and reparative injunctions restoring the same dock-related benefits constituted an impermissible double recovery.
- Affirmed the punitive-damages award for fraud because it is noncompensatory and not duplicative of reparative equitable relief.
- Reversed in part and remanded with instructions that plaintiffs must elect between (a) compensatory damages for fraud and breach of contract or (b) the injunctive relief, while keeping punitive damages in either event.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may not obtain duplicative remedies that together place the plaintiff in a better position than performance and truthful dealing would have produced.
- Under Missouri’s benefit-of-the-bargain measure, fraud compensatory damages reflect the difference between the value as represented and the value actually received; if an injunction restores the represented condition, keeping full damages for the same deficiency is double recovery.
- Reparative injunctions that restore a violated right are permissible, but they must be coordinated with damages to avoid compensating the same loss twice.
- Punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence rather than compensation and may be awarded alongside equitable relief when they do not duplicate compensatory recovery.
- When legal and equitable remedies overlap as to the same loss, an election of remedies may be required to prevent double recovery.

## Conclusion

The court required the plaintiffs to choose between compensatory damages (for fraud and breach) and injunctive relief that restored the dock-related benefits, while allowing punitive damages for fraud to stand because they were not compensatory and did not create a double recovery.


Forster v. Boss, 97 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1996)