874 N.W.2d 470
Neb.2016Background
- Opal Lowman was injured in a May 8, 2010 automobile collision caused by a third party; Lowmans sued their insurer, State Farm, under underinsured motorist coverage for pain and suffering.
- State Farm conceded the other driver’s negligence; trial focused only on causation and damages (Lowman withdrew loss-of-earning claim and conceded medical bills were paid).
- Plaintiffs’ counsel told the jury to award nothing if it did not believe Opal suffered compensable pain and suffering; the jury was instructed to return a verdict either for the plaintiffs or for the defendant.
- The jury returned a verdict “for the Plaintiffs” but awarded $0 in damages; the district court entered judgment on that verdict and denied the Lowmans’ motion for new trial.
- Lowmans appealed, arguing the court erred in receiving a verdict for plaintiffs with an award of $0 and in denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury verdict finding for a plaintiff but awarding no monetary damages is a valid verdict | Lowman argued the $0 award is inconsistent with a verdict for plaintiffs and requires new trial or judgment for defendant | State Farm argued the verdict reflected the jury’s determination that plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict but no compensable damages, so judgment on the verdict was proper | Court held such a verdict can be sustained on these facts where the trial record shows the jury intended to find for plaintiffs but award no damages |
| Whether the district court erred in denying a new trial after a $0 verdict | Lowman contended award was against the weight of evidence and inadequate | State Farm contended the jury permissibly found no compensable pain and suffering and plaintiffs had asked for nothing else | Court affirmed denial of new trial because record showed plaintiffs limited their claim to pain and suffering and jury reasonably awarded nothing |
| Whether prior Nebraska precedent requires treating a plaintiff-for-$0 verdict as no verdict | Lowman relied on cases holding a for-plaintiff but $0 award is a nullity | State Farm argued the context here distinguishes the present case from those precedents | Court distinguished prior cases and applied them to find the verdict valid under these facts (jury intent clear) |
| Whether verdict form/instructions required reversal | Lowman argued inconsistency between instruction and single plaintiff-favoring verdict form could have confused jury | State Farm noted no objection at trial and no assignment of error on form/instruction | Court noted no error assigned; concurrence suggested tailored verdict forms to match instructions but affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ambrozi v. Fry, 158 Neb. 18 (1954) (discusses jury returning verdict for plaintiff with no damages and trial court’s duty when award appears inadequate)
- Bushey v. French, 171 Neb. 809 (1961) (held a verdict finding for plaintiff but awarding no money confers no authority to enter judgment on it)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (2013) (standard for sufficiency of jury verdict and review of jury determinations)
- Shipler v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 Neb. 194 (2006) (deference to factfinder on damages)
- Klein v. Miller, 159 Or. 27 (1938) (out-of-state authority on jury verdict awarding no damages)