McMaster v. Progressive Security Insurance Co.
152 So. 3d 979
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 2, 2009 Anthony McMaster was rear‑ended by a vehicle driven by James Stevens (employee of D & S Steering). Plaintiff sued Stevens, D & S, and insurer Progressive.
- Plaintiff had a prior 1999 neck injury and lawsuit; he treated intermittently and had preexisting neck pathology before 2009.
- After the 2009 crash, MRIs and studies showed C5‑6 herniation; later he developed a new C4‑5 herniation and underwent a two‑level fusion in April 2011. Treating neurosurgeon did not relate the later C4‑5 herniation/fusion to the 2009 accident.
- At trial the district court granted summary judgment as to fault (Stevens solely at fault); the jury tried causation and damages and awarded $38,000 ($25,000 past medical; $10,000 pain and suffering; $3,000 past lost wages).
- McMaster appealed multiple rulings and the amount of damages; defendants sought sanctions for a frivolous appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and denied sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum of damages (past/future medical, lost wages, pain and suffering) | Jury award was manifestly inadequate for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and mental anguish | Jury verdict was supported by evidence, plaintiff had preexisting conditions, credibility issues, and gaps in treatment | Affirmed: appellate court defers to jury fact‑finding and discretion in assessing quantum |
| Admissibility of 1999 accident evidence and prior claims file | Trial court erred in admitting 1999 accident records and related suit; irrelevant and prejudicial | Defense: records were admitted without objection and plaintiff’s counsel referenced them in opening | Held: No error — plaintiff did not object at trial; issue waived on appeal |
| Trial court rulings (motion in limine reversal; jury form caption omission; cross‑examination objections) | Court erred by reversing limine ruling (limiting vs allowing claims file), jury form omitted Progressive, and improper cross‑examination | Defense: plaintiff failed to object at trial or failed to properly brief these points on appeal | Held: Waived for failure to object/brief; no reversible error found |
| Request for appellate sanctions (frivolous appeal) | N/A (plaintiff appealed in good faith) | Defendants sought damages for frivolous appeal | Held: Appeal lacked merit in parts but not entirely in bad faith; sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Iles v. Ogden, 37 So.3d 427 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (trial court/jury afforded broad discretion in assessing damages)
- Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70 (La. 2000) (assessment of quantum is factual and entitled to great deference)
- Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C., 45 So.3d 1152 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (jury may rely on expert testimony and common sense in fact‑finding)
- Bachemin v. Anderson, 717 So.2d 677 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (jury may reject expert opinion)
- Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, 52 So.3d 203 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (jury’s acceptance of expert testimony is discretionary)
- Trans‑Global Alloy, Ltd. v. First Nat’l Bank, 583 So.2d 443 (La. 1991) (issues not raised at trial cannot be advanced for the first time on appeal)
- Boudreaux v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, 585 So.2d 588 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1991) (JNOV is appropriate only where verdict is unsupported by any competent evidence)