877 F.3d 369
8th Cir.2017Background
- Christopher Wright, formerly an insurance producer for Byron Financial, was contractually required to remit 15% of commissions and repay certain expenses to Byron Financial. After leaving Byron, he continued for three months to use Byron Financial to obtain offers and review prospective clients without payment.
- Both parties sued for breach of contract; a jury found only Wright liable and awarded Byron Financial $500,000.00.
- Wright moved for JMOL, a new trial, or remittitur; the district court denied JMOL and a new trial but ordered a remittitur reducing the award to $245,510.93 without offering Byron Financial the option of a new trial.
- On appeal, Wright argued the verdict exceeded the pleaded claim and that remittitur (or a larger remittitur) was improper; Byron Financial argued the remittitur was unjustified or too small and that it should have had the option of a new trial.
- The Eighth Circuit upheld that the jury could award damages for Byron Financial’s unpaid work on post-termination ("new") cases because (1) Wright failed to preserve a pleading-scope challenge and (2) he consented to trial of the theory by not objecting under Rule 15(b)(2).
- The panel concluded the jury verdict was excessive but calculated the maximum recoverable amount under the record as $250,720.76 and held the district court must give Byron Financial the choice to accept that remittitur or receive a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Byron Financial (Plaintiff) Argument | Wright (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages for services on post-termination "new cases" were recoverable | Byron: Wright orally agreed to extend the contract; Byron may recover for work on new cases | Wright: Claim beyond scope of pleaded breach-of-contract; no obligation for new cases | Court: Recoverable — Wright failed to preserve pleading-scope challenge and impliedly consented to trial of that theory under Rule 15(b)(2) |
| Whether JMOL or new trial was required due to passion/prejudice or insufficient evidence | Byron: Verdict supported by evidence, including voicemail and accountings | Wright: Verdict was product of passion/prejudice and unsupported; JMOL/new trial warranted | Court: No JMOL or new trial; verdict not so monstrous or plainly unjust; remittitur appropriate instead of new trial |
| Whether remittitur was justified and complied with the maximum-recovery rule | Byron: Remittitur not justified and, if any, should be larger ($405,212.28) | Wright: Remittitur should be lower ($199,051.39) | Court: Remittitur justified but district court miscalculated; maximum permissible award is $250,720.76 (base commissions + renewals + expenses) |
| Whether district court erred by entering remittitur without offering plaintiff option of new trial | Byron: Should be allowed to choose new trial instead of accepting remitted judgment | Wright: (opposed) | Court: District court erred under Seventh Amendment/precedent; must provide Byron the option to accept remittitur or proceed to new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Nassar v. Jackson, 779 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 2015) (appellate review of Rule 50(a) denial limited to grounds raised pre-verdict)
- Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hollander, 705 F.3d 339 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 15(b)(2) implied consent to try unpleaded issues)
- Tedder v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc., 739 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2014) (standards for new trial for passion or prejudice)
- Eckerberg v. Inter-State Studio & Publ’g Co., 860 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2017) (remittitur standard under forum law)
- McCabe v. Parker, 608 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2010) (maximum recovery rule for remittitur)
- Climent-García v. Autoridad de Transporte Marítimo y las Islas Municipio, 754 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2014) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury when reviewing remittitur)
- Hetzel v. Prince William Cty., 523 U.S. 208 (1998) (district court cannot enter absolute remitted judgment without offering plaintiff the choice of a new trial)