 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hennings5/31/2005
ligence of another is entitled to "reasonable compensation," which "means such sum as would reasonably compensate the victim both for bodily injuries and for pain and suffering." Ritter v. Stanton, 745 N.E.2d 828, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied, cert. denied 536 U.S. 904 (2002). "To that sum is added past, present, and future expenses reasonably necessary to the plaintiff's treatment . . . ." Id.
There was no evidence to indicate that any of Hennings' medical bills were unreasonable or that any of her medical treatments were inappropriate. The evidence showed that Hennings' activities had been significantly curtailed as a result of the accident. According to her testimony, this constituted a diminished quality of life for her. Further, the evidence reflected Hennings suffered a permanent impairment in the use of her left leg. In addition, 3" years after the accident, Hennings continued to experience significant headache pain on a daily basis. Hennings' medical treatment also was on-going at the time of trial, and the evidence supports the reasonable inference that she will require additional medical treatment in the future for her injuries. In addition to future treatment, Hennings will suffer the impairing effect of the accident throughout her lifetime - nearly fifty more years, according to the evidence. This evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, support the damages award as found by the jury. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Allstate's motion to correct error on the grounds that an award of $100,000 was excessive.
2. Jury Instruction
Allstate also argues that the trial court erred when it "failed to instruct the jury that could only award up to the limits of Hennings['] uninsured motorists policy limits." Allstate's Br. at 11. We agree.
When addressing a challenge to a trial court's decision to refuse a tendered instruction, we consider "whether the instruction (1) correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is covered in substance by other instructions." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891, 893 (Ind. 2002). "The trial court has discretion in instructing the jury, and we will reverse on the last two issues only when the instructions amount to an abuse of discretion." Id.
Allstate's tendered instruction read as follows:
The limits of liability under the uninsured motorists provisions of Plaintiff's policy of insurance with The Allstate Insurance Company are One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). Any award of monetary damages entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, cannot exceed the policy limits.
(Allstate's App. 14).
Hennings does not claim that the tendered instruction was an incorrect statement or the law, or that it was covered in substance by other instructions. Rather, she appears to argue that the instruction was not supported by the evidence in that "it did not include the exception for cases involving a claim or evidence of bad faith." Hennings' Br. at 7. Because we have held that Hennings failed to press such a claim, her argument fails. The instruction tendered by Allstate was a correct statement of the law, it was supported by the evidence at trial, and it was not covered by any other instructions. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to instruct the jury as requested by Allstate.
3. Exclusion of Evidence
Finally, Allstate argues that the trial court erred when it refused to admit the second deposition of Dr. Klassen. In this regard, we disagree.
The decision whethe
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.
|
|