 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hennings5/31/2005
d for in the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident, in the absence of any claim or evidence that the insurer breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insured.
Id. at 1167 (emphasis added). Finding that "no evidence of any bad faith or unfair dealing on the party of Allstate was introduced" at trial, we held that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Allstate's motion to correct error and allowed to stand the jury's verdict "that imposed liability on Allstate in excess of the insurance motorist liability limits in Hammond's policy." Id. at 1167, 1168.
We begin by acknowledging that there may have been some evidence that Allstate's behavior in addressing Hennings' claim was less forthcoming and more equivocal than one would hope for in such circumstances. However, the law does not equate such behavior with tortious conduct.
In her legal action, Hennings did not plead bad faith by Allstate. Her complaint contains no such general allegation. Nor does her complaint allege that Allstate had made "an unfounded refusal to pay policy proceeds," or "caused an unfounded delay in making payment," or "deceived" her, or "exercise an unfair advantage to pressure into a settlement," or "acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness which was not the result of a mistake of fact or law, honest error or judgment, over-zealousness, mere negligence, or other human failing." Hickman, 622 N.E.2d at 519, 520. Hennings' final argument asked that Allstate be held accountable -- but the argument was framed with repeated references to her policy of insurance, such as that it was paid for by "over a thousand dollars every six months for premiums," and asked that Allstate "be held accountable for that which they promised to do." (Tr. 130, 131). Because neither Hennings' complaint nor her arguments at trial pressed a claim of bad faith, the issue of tortious bad faith conduct was never presented to the jury. Further, the jury was not instructed concerning Allstate's duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Given the circumstances before it, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant Allstate's motion to correct error. As a matter of law, Hennings' damages could not exceed the policy limits of $100,000. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's denial of Allstate's motion and remand for entry of an order reducing the award to Hennings to $100,000.
Allstate also argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to correct error because the jury's verdict was excessive in light of the evidence introduced at trial. We address this argument only as it applies to the implicit contention that an award of $100,000 was excessive. With this contention, we must disagree.
To have granted Allstate's motion to correct error, the evidence of Hennings' damages would have to have been "insufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law." Carbone v. Schwarte, 629 N.E.2d 1259, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); see also Childress v. Buckler, 779 N.E.2d 546, 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Thus, the verdict "must be upheld if the award determination falls within the bounds of the evidence." Childress, 779 at 550. A jury's award may be reversed "only . . . when it is apparent from a review of the evidence that the amount of the damages awarded by the jury is so small or so great as to clearly indicate that the jury was motivated by prejudice, passion, partiality, corruption or that it considered an improper element." Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, the jury is afforded a great deal of discretion in assessing damage awards. Sears Roebuck v. Manilov, 742 N.E.2d 453, 462 (Ind. 2001).
One injured by the neg
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|