In Carpenter v. Chrysler Corp., 853 S.W.2d 346 (Mo.App.1993), the appellants brought suit against an automobile dealership alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation for the dealership’s failure to disclose certain repairs it had made to the vehicle in which they purchased. Id. at 351. On appeal, the appellants claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. Id. at 364. The appellate court agreed, holding that “the jury could reasonably infer that [the dealership’s omissions] were taken with reckless indifference to the rights of the [appellants] or were evil, motivated solely by [its] desire to make a sale regardless of the repairs [it] had undertaken but had not disclosed.” Id.; see also Chong, 361 F.3d at 459 (<HOLDING>). Likewise, in the case at bar, it seems
holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages holding that sellers intentional misrepresentation sufficiently supported assessment of punitive damages against it