Coogan v. Genuine Parts Co.
98296-1
| Wash. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Doy (Jerry) Coogan, a longtime automotive and excavation worker, died of peritoneal mesothelioma after prolonged asbestos exposure; he suffered months of severe, awareness-of-death pain before dying at 67.
- After a 12‑week trial a jury found Genuine Parts Company (GPC) and NAPA liable and awarded $81.5 million (breakdown: $30M pain & suffering; $30M wife loss of consortium; $20M daughters loss of consortium; $1.5M loss of services).
- GPC and NAPA moved for a new trial/remittitur arguing (1) trial court improperly excluded defense expert Dr. Gary Schuster (life‑expectancy evidence), (2) plaintiff counsel’s misconduct prejudiced the jury, and (3) damages were excessive; they later sought CR 60 relief alleging suppressed probate evidence.
- The trial court denied posttrial relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed liability but vacated the damages award, finding the exclusion of Dr. Schuster erroneous and the pain & suffering award “shocks the conscience.”
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals: it held the trial court did not abuse discretion excluding Dr. Schuster, found no clear prejudice from counsel misconduct, concluded the damages award was supported by substantial evidence and not the product of passion or prejudice, and affirmed denial of CR 60 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coogan) | Defendant's Argument (GPC/NAPA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Schuster’s life‑expectancy opinion (ER 702/403) | Exclusion proper: Schuster’s opinion was speculative, not grounded in the record, and prejudicial. | Testimony probative of an alternative life expectancy and should have been admitted (or alcohol references redacted). | Court upheld exclusion: opinion speculative, insufficient factual basis, and prejudicial; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| New trial for attorney misconduct (CR 59(a)(1),(2)) | Any improper questioning/argument by counsel did not materially prejudice defendants; trial court cured where needed. | Misconduct throughout trial inflamed jury and deprived defendants of fair trial. | Denial affirmed: record does not show clear, prejudicial effect; trial court in best position to assess. |
| Excessiveness of damages / verdict shocks conscience (CR 59(a)(5)) | Damages within range of evidence; defendants failed to show jury acted from passion or prejudice. | Verdict so large it is flagrantly outrageous and must indicate passion/prejudice. | Reversed Court of Appeals: verdict supported by substantial evidence; size alone insufficient to overturn absent unmistakable proof of improper influence. |
| CR 60(b) relief based on probate declarations (newly discovered / fraud) | Trial record rebutted claim of concealment; probate disputes were known pretrial and defendants failed to pursue them. | Post‑trial probate filings show plaintiff misrepresented family relations; would likely change result if considered. | Denial affirmed: defendants knew or could have discovered probate evidence pretrial; no abuse of discretion in denying relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilmore v. Jefferson County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area, 190 Wn.2d 483 (2018) (appellate review of trial discretionary rulings limited; defer to trial court unless no reasonable person would agree).
- Bunch v. King County Dep’t of Youth Servs., 155 Wn.2d 165 (2005) (strong presumption of correctness for jury damages; verdict size alone does not condemn it).
- Bingaman v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp., 103 Wn.2d 831 (1985) (courts may set aside verdicts that "shock the conscience" but must consider duration and nature of suffering).
- James v. Robeck, 79 Wn.2d 864 (1971) (amount of damages is an ultimate fact for the jury; appellate interference should be rare).
- Volk v. DeMeerleer, 187 Wn.2d 241 (2016) (expert opinion must be grounded in facts in record; speculative opinions inadmissible).
- Gerlach v. Cove Apts., LLC, 196 Wn.2d 111 (2020) (speculative expert testimony forces juror speculation and may be excluded).
- Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (1992) (verdict strengthened when trial court denies new trial; appellate review narrow).
- Teter v. Deck, 174 Wn.2d 207 (2012) (elements and preservation rules for new trial based on counsel misconduct).