The Entertainer, Inc., and Charles E. Wells v. Cory Duffy

Summary

The court affirmed the judgments against The Entertainer and Wells. It held that appellants were not entitled to a new trial because they failed to show diligence in monitoring the case or communicating with their attorney, that the attorney-fee issue was not properly before the court, and that charitable immunity was an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar. The court also upheld the punitive-damages award because the admitted allegations and hearing evidence supported a finding of reckless or wanton conduct. No separate opinions were filed.