 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meroney6/30/2005
therefore, the jury verdict did not foreclose the submission of the special interrogatory to the jury. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moore. Moreover, because the issues were different, the jury's answer to the special interrogatory was not inconsistent with its verdict on Meroney's claims. See Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moore.
Meroney argues that we should affirm the trial court's holding that the special interrogatory was improper on the ground that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury before submitting the special interrogatory. We note that, although Meroney objected to the trial court's submitting the special interrogatory to the jury, she did not timely object to the instructions the trial court gave the jury regarding the special interrogatory because the trial transcript indicates that she did not object until after the jury had retired to consider its answer to the special interrogatory. See Rule 51, Ala. R. Civ. P. (stating that objections to jury instructions must be made "before the jury retires to consider its verdict").
Meroney also argues that we should affirm the trial court's holding that the special interrogatory was improper on the ground that the jury's answer to the special interrogatory was unsupported by the evidence. However, we find that the jury's answer to the special interrogatory was supported by substantial evidence.
Alfa argues that the jury's answer to the special interrogatory entitled Alfa to a judgment declaring that Alfa was not obligated to indemnify Morgan against the $50,000 judgment obtained by Meroney. We agree. Because the special interrogatory was proper, the trial court erred in not giving effect to the jury's answer to the special interrogatory. The jury's affirmative answer to the special interrogatory entitled Alfa to a judgment declaring that Alfa was not obligated to indemnify Morgan against the $50,000 judgment obtained by Meroney. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying Alfa's motion for such a judgment and in entering a judgment declaring that Alfa is obligated to indemnify Morgan.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court's judgment holding the special interrogatory to be improper, denying Alfa a judgment declaring that it is not obligated to indemnify Morgan against the $50,000 judgment obtained by Meroney, and declaring that Alfa is obligated to indemnify Morgan against that judgment. We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment declaring that Alfa is not obligated to indemnify Morgan against Meroney's $50,000 judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Thompson, Pittman and Murdock, JJ., concur.
Crawley, P.J., concurs in the result, without writing.
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|