Lonetta Nicole Silas v. Secura Insurance Companies
331169
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- December 10, 2012 multi-vehicle crash: Fenton’s Taurus hit Matulionis’s Ranger, which struck Silas’s Chrysler. Secura insured the Chrysler and initially paid PIP benefits, later suspending them after independent medical examinations (IMEs) concluded Silas had no significant injury.
- Silas sued Secura (claiming unpaid PIP and underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits) and Fenton (later settled for his policy limit).
- At an eight-day jury trial, the jury found Fenton at fault and awarded Silas ~ $500k in PIP plus over $6 million in UIM damages; the trial court later reduced the UIM award to conform to the $1 million policy limit (offset by Fenton’s $100k payment), and the net recovery was ~ $1.66 million after adjustments.
- On appeal Secura argued trial errors: (1) plaintiff’s counsel engaged in prejudicial misconduct (including race-based and conspiracy arguments); (2) the trial court abused discretion by admitting evidence of Silas’s settlement with Fenton; and (3) the court abused discretion by excluding Secura’s vocational expert (Slabey-Klar).
- The Court of Appeals found those errors (and their cumulative effect) prejudicial and reversed, ordering a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney misconduct (improper closing and trial remarks) | Counsel argued credibility, suggested conspiracy between defense and witness, and alleged Secura racially targeted Silas via Facebook evidence to justify inferences | Remarks were baseless, inflammatory, aimed to inflame jurors, and denied Secura a fair trial | Remarks were improper, pervasive, and likely incurable; counsel’s conduct contributed to reversible error |
| Admission of settlement evidence between Silas and Fenton | Settlement shows exhaustion of other limits (condition precedent to UIM) and is relevant to setoff | Settlement amount and existence were irrelevant to jury’s fact-finding on damages and fault; exhaustion could be handled by court instruction or stipulation | Trial court abused discretion by admitting settlement evidence to the jury; admission was irrelevant and prejudicial given how plaintiff used it in argument |
| Exclusion of defense vocational expert (Slabey-Klar) | Expert speculative, relied on hearsay, lacked direct interview/medical foundation | Expert relied on medical testimony and records, performed transferable-skills and labor-market analysis to show jobs available | Exclusion was an abuse of discretion: expert testimony based on other experts’ opinions and records was permissible; exclusion likely affected PIP/work-loss damages |
| Cumulative-error doctrine | Individual errors harmless | Errors collectively prejudiced Secura’s right to a fair trial | Cumulative effect of multiple errors warranted reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co., 416 Mich 97 (Mich. 1982) (appellate review of unpreserved but incurable trial errors; guidance on misconduct and incurable prejudice)
- Powell v. St. John Hosp., 241 Mich App 64 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (improper injection of race into trial is reversible where used to inflame jury)
- Miller v. Hensley, 244 Mich App 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (evidentiary error requires disturbance of judgment only if refusal to act is inconsistent with substantial justice)
- Lenawee County v. Wagley, 301 Mich App 134 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court’s gatekeeper role under MRE 702 for expert reliability)
- Triple E Produce Corp. v. Mastronardi Produce, Ltd., 209 Mich App 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (an expert may base opinion on findings/opinions of other experts)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich App 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (cumulative-error doctrine: aggregate prejudice can require reversal)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575 (Mich. 2002) (discussion of cumulative error and aggregate unfair prejudice)