905 S.E.2d 380
S.C.2024Background
- Beverly Dale Jolly was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Fisher Controls International, LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC while working at nuclear plants in the early 1980s.
- In 2016, Dale was diagnosed with mesothelioma, prompting him and his wife Brenda to sue multiple defendants for damages, including a loss of consortium claim by Brenda.
- Before trial, the Jollys settled with all defendants except Fisher and Crosby for a total of $2,270,000.
- The jury awarded Dale $200,000 (personal injury) and Brenda $100,000 (loss of consortium); the Jollys moved for a new trial nisi additur, seeking higher damages.
- The trial court granted the additur and increased the verdicts but allowed Fisher and Crosby the option of accepting the new amounts or having a new trial; the court also partially denied Fisher and Crosby's motion to set off the full settlement amount.
- The Supreme Court reviewed (on certiorari) whether the trial court properly granted the new trial nisi additur and whether it correctly handled the setoff of pretrial settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of new trial nisi additur | Jury award was inadequate given the evidence. | The additur was improper; increase reflected gross inadequacy. | Trial court acted within discretion; additur affirmed. |
| Standard/procedure for new trial nisi additur | Adhered to compelling reasons and substantial deference. | Trial court speculated improperly on jury rationale. | Trial court explained compelling reasons; standard met. |
| Setoff of pretrial settlements | Internal allocation among claims is reasonable; double recovery avoided. | Full settlement should be set off against jury award; internal allocation improper. | Trial court may reasonably allocate settlements; partial setoff affirmed. |
| Timing and method of settlement allocation | Reasonable to allocate to all possible claims (including potential future ones). | Only allocations stipulated by the release at settlement should count for setoff. | Post-verdict allocation acceptable if reasonable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 (S.C. 1993) (trial court's authority to grant new trial nisi additur when verdict is merely inadequate)
- Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C. 185 (S.C. 2015) (distinguishing between merely and grossly inadequate verdicts; compelling reasons for new trial nisi)
- Rutland v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 400 S.C. 209 (S.C. 2012) (setoff rights for non-settling defendants for the same injury)
- Brabham v. S. Asphalt Haulers, Inc., 223 S.C. 421 (S.C. 1953) (substantial deference to jury’s damages assessment)
- Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393 (S.C. 1984) (option for party to accept altered verdict or seek new trial after nisi additur/remittitur)