Ostrem v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 01-1384.
Decision Date | 11 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 01-1384.,01-1384. |
Citation | 666 N.W.2d 544 |
Parties | Dabra OSTREM, Executor of the Sandra K. Biddle Estate, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Robert A. Wright, Jr., of Wright & Wright, Des Moines, for appellant.
Henry A. Harmon and Michael A. Carmoney of Grefe & Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
This is a suit by the executor of the estate of Sandra K. Biddle against the driver of a vehicle that struck the Biddle car. The jury found against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed the resulting judgment. We affirm.
Sandra Biddle was injured when a car driven by Martha Hiracheta struck the rear of the vehicle in which Sandra was a passenger. Ms. Hiracheta's insurance policy provided $100,000 in liability coverage, but Sandra settled for $41,500 with Hiracheta's insurance carrier. Sandra then sued State Farm, the insurer of the car in which she was riding, claiming her damages exceeded the policy limits of Hiracheta's carrier. Sandra died on April 16, 2001, from causes unrelated to the accident, and her estate was substituted as the plaintiff. The case was tried to a jury, which was advised in the marshaling instruction:
(Emphasis added.) During its deliberations, the jury sent out three questions for the court, "we need a definition of mitigate," "can we factor the earlier settlement from Ms. Hiracheta's insurance co. into our discussion," and "did she receive the $100,000." None of the questions were answered, due to the unavailability of the court and the plaintiff's attorney.
The verdict form gave the jury spaces to answer questions and also spaces to indicate damages. Under question 4, the jury was to list "the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff proximately caused by Martha Jane Hiracheta's fault as to each of the following items of damage...." The jury then listed $3000 for past medical expenses and $80,000 for past pain and suffering, for a total of $83,000.
In the judgment entry, the court stated that the
Sandra moved to reform or amend the jury verdict and moved for a new trial. She claimed that the clear intent of the jury was to award her damages of $83,000 above the $100,000 policy limit. She also claimed, in the motion for a new trial, that the jury should have been instructed on lost wages. The court denied both motions, and the plaintiff appealed.
Two issues are raised on the plaintiff's appeal: (1) the court's refusal to amend the verdict to show the $83,000 damages found by the jury were intended to be in addition to the $100,000 of liability limits under Hiracheta's policy, and (2) the court erred in failing to submit lost wages as an element of damages.
The estate argues that the marshaling instruction made it clear to the jury that it was to award damages only if they "exceeded the policy limits of defendant Hiracheta's insurance policy." Therefore, when the jury returned a verdict for $83,000, it must have intended this to be in addition to the $100,000 liability under the tortfeasor's policy. State Farm responds that this is not a logical assumption because, regardless of the reference in the marshaling instruction to the $100,000 of liability coverage, there was no statement in the instructions that would inform the jury that the damages found in its verdict form would be in addition to the $100,000 liability limits.
No doubt it would have been less confusing to the jury if the $100,000 had not even been mentioned in the court's instructions, but it was. This information was conveyed to the jury at the request of the plaintiff and over the objection of the defendant. The confusion could have been avoided also if the verdict form would have said to "state the amount ... over and above the $100,000 limits of the Hiracheta policy," but it did not.
Id. at 620 (footnotes omitted).
Our cases have recognized the authority of the court, in very limited circumstances, to amend a jury verdict. For example, in Weatherwax v. Koontz, 545 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 1996), the district court was asked to amend a verdict to increase the amount of it. In that case, there was evidence that jurors were confused about what they thought the amount of the verdict should be. Affidavits of jurors had been admitted by the trial court (a practice we have criticized) showing:
One juror stated a total figure of $961,340 was discussed, another claimed the figure was $697,000, and still others contended no damage amounts were agreed upon other than the [actual verdict of] $96,134.
Weatherwax, 545 N.W.2d at 525.
Under these confusing circumstances, we concluded Id. Similarly, in Rutledge v. Johnson, 282 N.W.2d 111 (Iowa 1979), a case that involved the analogous remedy of recalling the jury to correct its verdict, we recognized in dictum the authority of the district court to reform a jury verdict if the "certain intention of the jury is evident...." Rutledge, 282 N.W.2d at 115; accord 89 C.J.S. Trials § 908, at 531 (2002) .
Neither Weatherwax nor Rutledge discusses the standard for reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to amend a verdict, but in analogous cases involving additurs and remittiturs, we have said:
The district court may grant an aggrieved party a new trial when the jury awards excessive or inadequate damages, or when the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law. The district court has considerable discretion in ruling upon a motion for new trial based upon the ground that the verdict was inadequate.... [W]e will not ordinarily disturb its discretion to grant or deny the motion unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Chi. Cent. & Pac. R.R. Co., 13–0729.
...that it should be presumed to include at least some amount of damages for lost income. Phillips cites Ostrem v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 666 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa 2003), for the proposition that a district court has very limited authority to correct mistakes or errors in ......
-
Cpt v. John Deere Health Care
...either send the jury back or order a new trial."). A court may reform a verdict by correcting a mistake. Ostrem v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 666 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa 2003). We recognize that "verdicts are to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to ha......
-
Workman v. Workman (In re Estate of Workman)
...submitting a requested instruction earlier while not making a record of it at the instruction conference. Ostrem v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. , 666 N.W.2d 544, 547–48 (Iowa 2003).For these reasons, to preserve error on the burden of proof issue, Dennis had to renew his position at trial by......
-
Anderson v. Anderson Tooling, Inc.
...Review."[O]ur review of a court’s ruling on a motion to amend the verdict should be for abuse of discretion." Ostrem v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. , 666 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Iowa 2003). An abuse of discretion occurs when the "decision is based on a ground or reason that is clearly untenable or ......