Jackson-Miller v. State Farm Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01289-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-20-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Exclusion of policy limits - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence - Additur - Jury instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-13-2009 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: AWARDED $30,000 IN DAMAGES TO APPELLANT; Trial court denied Miller's motion for a JNOV Case Number: 2008-196 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Valerie Jackson-Miller |
BARRY W. HOWARD, ROBERT FARLEY WILKINS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State Farm Insurance Company | PHILIP W. GAINES, CHRISTOPHER DAVID MORRIS | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - Exclusion of policy limits - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence - Additur - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Valerie Jackson-Miller filed an action asserting claims against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company for damages resulting from the injuries she sustained in the automobile accident with Walter Duncan, an uninsured motorist. A jury awarded her $30,000 in damages. Miller filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial or additur. The court denied the motion, and Miller appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Policy limits Miller argues that the circuit court erred in excluding evidence of the amount of her UM policy from the jury. Miller’s UM policy provided $250,000 in coverage. Both parties stipulated that the insurance policy would be admitted into the circuit court’s record, with the stipulation including an agreement on all coverage issues potentially relevant to Miller’s UM policy claim. It was also stipulated that Duncan, an uninsured motorist, was 100 % at fault for the accident. Therefore, this was a damages-only case. Because this case was only about damages, the circuit court properly excluded the UM policy limits under M.R.E. 403, because it would have been more prejudicial than probative. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Miller argues that she provided extensive testimony regarding her permanent injuries, medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering and that a verdict of only $30,000 ignores the fact that she suffered permanent injury and that she still continues to suffer pain from the car accident. Miller had suffered injuries in previous car accidents prior to the subject car accident. At trial, Miller’s underlying injuries were shown to be reasonably present from other causes and factors. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 3: Additur Miller argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for additur, because the overwhelming weight of evidence presented at trial showed that her permanent injuries, medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering warranted a damage award significantly higher than the amount awarded by the jury. An additur will only be granted in cases where the trial judge makes a finding that the damage award was inadequate because the jury was influenced by bias, prejudice or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. There is nothing in the record that suggests the jury was influenced by prejudice, bias, or passion. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury and the circuit judge could have found that Miller was only entitled to $30,000 in damages. Issue 4: Jury instruction Miller argues that the circuit court erred in denying one of her jury instructions which was crucial to her case because State Farm offered no expert testimony to separate which injuries were attributable from the January 13, 2005, car accident and which injuries were attributable to prior car accidents. The jury instruction was not supported by the evidence presented at trial, because there was no apportionment issue presented. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
