 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Finstad v. W.R. Grace and Co.8/22/2000
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, Judge presiding.
Argued: March 21, 2000
Submitted: April 27, 2000
1 Kenneth R. Finstad and Edith L. Finstad, husband and wife (Finstads), filed suit against W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. (W.R. Grace) in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the Finstads, awarding $400,000 in compensatory damages and determining that an award of punitive damages was warranted. Immediately thereafter, the District Court conducted a mini-trial regarding the award of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the punitive damage mini-trial, the jury, by a vote of eight to four, awarded the Finstads punitive damages in the amount of $83,000. After reviewing the jury's punitive damage award, the District Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order affirming the award. W.R. Grace appeals from the final judgment entered in favor of the Finstads and the Finstads cross-appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial on the amount of punitive damages.
2 W.R. Grace presents the following issues on appeal:
3 . Whether the District Court erred when it declared § 27-1-221(6), MCA, unconstitutional?
4 . Whether the District Court erred when it denied W.R. Grace's motion to dismiss the Finstads' claim for punitive damages based on the theory of collateral estoppel by virtual representation?
5 The Finstads raise the following issues on cross-appeal:
6 . Whether the District Court erred when it allowed the jury to be advised that the Finstads would be the recipients of the punitive damage award?
7 . Whether the District Court erred when it allowed W.R. Grace to present evidence of other asbestos litigation involving W.R. Grace as well as fictional average amounts for each pending claim during the punitive damage mini-trial?
BACKGROUND
8 Kenneth Finstad was employed by W.R. Grace at its vermiculite mining and milling operation in Lincoln County, Montana, from 1965 to 1967. During his employment with W.R. Grace, Mr. Finstad was exposed to dust containing tremolite asbestos. Mr. Finstad was subsequently diagnosed with asbestosis in September 1998.
9 On October 2, 1998, the Finstads filed a personal injury action against W.R. Grace seeking compensatory and punitive damages. W.R. Grace filed a motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages on the basis that the issue of punitive damages had already been decided in two previous cases involving W.R. Grace and was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by virtual representation. After the motion had been fully briefed by the parties, the District Court issued an order denying dismissal of the Finstads' claim for punitive damages.
10 The parties conducted discovery and filed several motions in limine. After the motions in limine had been fully briefed by the parties, the District Court issued an order granting the Finstads' motion regarding the constitutional right to a jury verdict by a majority of two-thirds in a civil case. In doing so, the District Court declared § 27-1-221(6), MCA, to be unconstitutional.
11 A jury trial was commenced on May 3, 1999, resulting in verdicts awarding the Finstads compensatory and punitive damages. Judgment was entered on the verdicts from which W.R. Grace appeals and the Finstads cross-appeal. During appellate mediation pursuant to Rule 54, M.R.App.P., the parties settled the issues concerning compensatory damages, preserving the issues
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|