Kirk Manuel v. MDOW Insurance Company, 791 F.3d 838

Manuel's house burned down while he was on vacation; MDOW denied his insurance claim, alleging the fire was intentionally set and the claim contained fraud.
Manuel sued MDOW; after a three-day jury trial the jury found MDOW proved Manuel burned or caused the house to be burned and returned a verdict for MDOW.
MDOW’s fire-investigation expert Richard Eley testified he concluded the fire was incendiary after scene examination and speaking with Manuel; Eley disputed parts of NFPA 921’s characterization of the “negative corpus” method.
Manuel did not object to Eley’s qualifications or testimony at trial but cross-examined him on NFPA 921 compliance; Manuel later moved for a new trial asserting juror bias and challenging Eley’s testimony on appeal.
Manuel alleged two jurors (W and C) failed to disclose relationships with several of his witnesses; affidavits described cousinship and school/teacher connections but were sparse on details.
The district court denied a new trial and an evidentiary hearing; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no actual or implied extreme juror bias and no plain error in admitting Eley’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether undisclosed juror relationships warranted a new trial (actual or implied bias)	Jurors W and C failed to disclose ties to witnesses; Manuel argued dishonesty or implied bias (e.g., cousin relationship) required a hearing and new trial	Jurors disclosed some connections; remaining ties were distant, undeveloped, or revealed during trial; no evidence of actual partiality	No abuse of discretion: no proof jurors answered dishonestly or were motivated by partiality; relationships not extreme enough to imply bias; denial of hearing and new trial affirmed
Whether admission of MDOW’s fire expert constituted reversible error (NFPA 921/negative corpus)	Eley relied on a disfavored “negative corpus” approach contrary to NFPA 921; testimony should have been excluded and verdict set aside	Eley based opinion on scene observations and extensive experience; Manuel failed to object at trial and only cross-examined Eley — review is for plain error	No plain error: Eley’s methodology (scene examination + experience + interview) is an admissible basis; lack of contemporaneous objection and potential weaknesses were for jury credibility determinations

McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (new-trial standard for juror dishonesty and for-cause challenges)
United States v. Ruiz, 446 F.3d 762 (8th Cir.) (elements for proving juror dishonesty/bias)
Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450 (8th Cir.) (NFPA 921 is a reliable investigative guide; experts need reliably-applied methods)
Hiser v. XTO Energy, Inc., 768 F.3d 773 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
United States v. White Bull, 646 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir.) (when to grant evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct)
Rush v. Smith, 56 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review requires prejudice to substantial rights)