Cammeby's Management Co. v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., 17-88-cv

Cammeby’s owned a Brooklyn property portfolio that suffered >$30M flood damage in Hurricane Sandy; a jury found the flood sublimit was $10M (not appealed).
Alliant, Cammeby’s insurance broker, solicited and obtained a $30M flood sublimit from insurer Affiliated FM on July 1, 2011; Cammeby’s later sought a reduction back to $10M on July 26–27, 2011.
Dispute: whether a valid agreement (or subsequent ratification) by Cammeby’s reduced the sublimit to $10M, or whether Alliant negligently caused an unauthorized reduction for which it is liable for the $20M difference.
First trial: jury found the sublimit was reduced to $10M and Alliant negligent; court granted new trial limited to the ratification defense because an instruction on ratification was erroneous.
Second (partial) retrial: limited to whether Cammeby’s ratified the reduction; jury again found no ratification. District Court denied Alliant’s post-trial JMOL/ new-trial motions; Alliant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judgment as a matter of law should have been granted on ratification	Cammeby’s: evidence supported that it did not have knowledge/intent to ratify; credibility disputes for jury	Alliant: documentary evidence (emails, premium refund) conclusively show Cammeby’s knew and accepted the $10M limit	Held: JMOL denied — reasonable juror could find no ratification given testimonial and documentary evidence
Whether the partial retrial limited to ratification was improper	Cammeby’s: ratification is distinct from negligence and can be retried alone	Alliant: negligence and ratification are intertwined so partial retrial causes injustice	Held: Partial retrial proper — ratification is separable and tied to whether prior act was unauthorized
Whether jury instructions at second trial erroneously assumed negligence caused damages	Cammeby’s: first jury already found negligence and causation; instruction merely reflects that prior finding	Alliant: second jury should not have been told negligence caused damages	Held: No error — first trial required a finding that negligence produced the reduction, so second-trial framing was permissible
Whether summation ruling prejudiced Alliant	Cammeby’s: allowed to argue proximate causation consistent with prior verdict	Alliant: summation improperly argued negligence = proximate cause to the second jury	Held: No prejudicial error; arguments and instructions aligned with prior verdict

Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 50 JMOL)
Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir.) (JMOL review; view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc., 226 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
Gasoline Prod. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494 (U.S.) (Seventh Amendment/partial retrial principles)
Bohack Corp. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 715 F.2d 703 (2d Cir.) (when partial new trial is proper)
In re Adelphia Recovery Tr., 634 F.3d 678 (2d Cir.) (ratification requires full knowledge of material facts)
Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc., 716 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instruction error)