Appellant Preserves Nothing By Merely Alleging Verdict Is Against The Weight Of The Evidence. Evidence Of Threatening Witnesses, Fabricating Expert Report, And Other Conduct Supports Punitive Damage Award of $4,000,000
01/08/08
State Farm appeals verdict in excess of $4,000,000 after insured’s claim was denied and State Farm initiated state court insurance fraud claim on stolen vehicle. Instructional error claims were not preserved in that State Farm “must show that the instruction misled, misdirected, or confused the jury, and that prejudice resulted from the error.” Trial court will be reversed only on instructional error if the error substantially prejudiced the appellant. Rule 70.03 requires a party must make specific objections at the jury instruction conference and in their motion for new trial in order to preserve the issue on appeal. The theory of the point on appeal must be the same as that of the trial objection. When a case under Kansas law is tried in Missouri and Missouri and Kansas substantive law are the same, the Missouri Approved Instructions must be given. It is “trite to repeat again that simply declaring the verdict is against the weight of the evidence preserves nothing for appellate review because appellate courts, unlike trial courts, do not weigh the evidence in jury tried cases”. Merely stating that the verdict “was against the weight of the evidence” is nothing more than an abstract statement of the law and preserves nothing for appellate review. Evidence that State Farm did not provide the prosecuting attorney with its complete files, including omitting evidence of glass fragments with blood on them found in the car and omission of the local police department report that showed an absence of any evidence of the vehicle having been towed (as would have been required by State Farm’s theory of the case), evidence of the alleged encouragement of fabrication of an expert’s report, and evidence that State Farm’s attorney threatened the insured’s attorney that the insured better be careful about pursuing her insurance claim because criminal charges could still be brought, in addition to falsely stating that there were plaster casts of tire tracks found near the abandoned burned vehicle that matched a tow truck, contacting a witness’ diversion officer after the witness’ testimony changed in a way unhelpful to State Farm and threatening to prosecute witness for perjury provided substantial evidence to support the determination that State Farm acted maliciously. Further, such conduct by State Farm “is clearly reprehensible” so as to support punitive damages. $4,000,000 is reasonable based on the egregious acts committed by State Farm. Hampton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Docket No. WD66791 (Mo.App.W.D. 1/08/2008)
For more general information, visit Appellate Litigation.
Back to News
At Swanson Midgley, we listen to our clients' needs in order to help them plan for the future and achieve their goals.
