 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
WAITS v. UNITED FIRE & CAS. CO.12/24/1997
rior to trial, United Fire filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Allied's policy limits and the settlement amount paid by Allied to Waits on behalf of the tortfeasor, [572 NW2d Page 569]
claiming (1) this information was not relevant to any issue before the jury, and (2) any limited relevance of this evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial impact. The court ruled the challenged evidence was admissible.
At trial, Waits introduced into evidence the amount paid by Allied to settle Waits' claim against Fay. Additionally, the trial court stated the amount of this settlement three separate times in its instructions to the jury: once in its statement of the case, a second time in an instruction telling the jury not to reduce its verdict by the amount of the tort-feasor's settlement because the court would do that later, and a third time in the special interrogatory, again telling the jury to calculate Waits' damages " ithout taking into consideration any reduction of damages due to the previous recovery of $90,297.86." United Fire preserved its challenge to this evidence and the court's instructions by making timely objections.
A. Scope of review. "We review the trial court's determination of the relevancy of this evidence for an abuse of discretion." Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537, 544 (Iowa 1997). The party claiming an abuse of discretion must show "that the court exercised discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997). One way in which a ground or reason is shown to be clearly untenable is when it is not based on substantial evidence or is based on an erroneous application of the law. See City of Windsor Heights v. Spanos, 572 N.W.2d 591, 592 (Iowa 1997).
We review a trial court's instructions for correction of legal error. See McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 545. An erroneous instruction does not entitle the party claiming error to reversal unless the error was prejudicial. See Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1994).
B. Principles of relevancy and unfair prejudice. Relevant evidence means "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Iowa R. Evid. 401. Even relevant evidence should not be admitted when "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Iowa R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice arises when the evidence prompts the jury to make a decision on an improper basis, often an emotional one. See State v. Casady, 491 N.W.2d 782, 786 (Iowa 1992); see also 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence 403 , at 403-37 to 403-39 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 1997) (defining prejudicial evidence as " vidence that appeals to the jury's sympathies[,] . . . arouses sense of horror[,] . . . provokes instinct to punish[,] . . . triggers other intense human reactions").
C. Relevancy. Waits argues the payment made by Allied on behalf of the tortfeasor is relevant in this case because
he issues in the underlying trial were not only the amount of damages sustained by Lori Waits, but whether the Defendant had breached this insurance agreement by refusing to pay benefits to her to which she was entitled. To prove that, Waits must prove the extent of her damages and that they exceed $90,297.86. Thus, the amount paid by the tortfeasor is relevant. . . .
Waits' argument ignores the manner in which this case was submitted to the jury. Although Waits certainly had to prove that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|