415 P.3d 1165
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and this court reversed and remanded because the trial court admitted an inventory spreadsheet as a business record when it contained values derived from outside sources not under a duty to report.
- The spreadsheet was prepared by plaintiffs' adjuster (through a person named Connell) but relied on internet sources and vendor calls for replacement-cost values.
- The court held those outside sources were not part of the adjusters’ business and thus the spreadsheet was inadmissible under OEC 803(6) as construed with a "duty to report" requirement.
- The appellate opinion reversed and remanded for a new trial, but did not specify whether the retrial should be limited to damages.
- Plaintiffs asked for clarification that retrial be limited to damages only; defendant argued a full retrial on all issues (including affirmative defenses and breach) was required because the spreadsheet may have affected those issues.
- The court allowed reconsideration to clarify disposition but did not revisit its evidentiary ruling; it left to the trial court the discretion to limit the new trial to damages or order a full retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of inventory spreadsheet under business-records exception | Spreadsheet is a business record documenting lost property and values; admissible under OEC 803(6) | Values came from outside sources not part of the adjusters’ business; thus inadmissible | Spreadsheet inadmissible as business record because key values originated from outside sources not under a duty to report |
| Effect of evidentiary error on entitlement to retrial scope | Error only affected damages proof; retrial should be damages-only because jury already resolved affirmative defenses and breach | Error may have "intertwined" with affirmative defenses and breach; full retrial required | Scope of retrial left to trial court discretion; appellate decision does not preclude damages-only retrial |
| Whether appellate court should reconsider merits on rehearing petition | Plaintiffs asked reconsideration and reargument of admissibility ruling | Defendant opposed reconsideration of the merits | Reconsideration allowed for clarification of disposition but court adhered to prior merits ruling and did not revisit evidentiary analysis |
| Standard for remand scope when parties focus on single issue on appeal | If parties brief interrelationship, appellate court may limit retrial to damages | Absent parties’ briefing and trial-court familiarity, appellate court should defer to trial court | Appellate court will not sua sponte confine retrial scope; trial court determines whether error prejudiced other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Valley Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 289 Or. App. 454, 410 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (appellate decision reversing and remanding for admission of inadmissible hearsay business record)
- State v. Cain, 260 Or. App. 626, 320 P.3d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (construing business-record exception to require a duty to report for outside-source information to be treated as part of a business record)
- Jessen v. Colton, 134 Or. App. 327, 895 P.2d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1995) (example where appellate court directed new trial limited to damages)