400 S.W.3d 802
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Precision Electric, JD Builders, and Ex-Amish jointly owned a building and leased office space to six tenants, including their three companies.
- A fire destroyed the building, causing substantial losses to the plaintiffs’ property located in their office spaces.
- PJD sued Ex-Amish alleging the fire started in Ex-Amish’s office due to Yoder’s welding and Ex-Amish's liability for PJD’s losses; a jury found Ex-Amish liable for none of the four counts.
- PJD moved for a new trial arguing the trial was prejudiced by the highly prejudicial introduction of insurance into the case.
- The trial court granted the new-trial motion, and Ex-Amish appealed, arguing no prejudice and invited error by PJD.
- The appellate court reversed the new-trial grant and reinstated the jury verdict, holding that PJD neither objected timely nor showed prejudice as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the new-trial grant based on insurance references an abuse of discretion? | PJD contends insurance references were prejudicial and improperly injected by Ex-Amish. | Ex-Amish asserts prejudice existed and the trial court acted within discretion. | Yes; no reversible prejudice established; new trial reversed. |
| Did PJD invite the insurance error during trial? | PJD argues it sought insurance context and did not object later as invited error. | Ex-Amish contends PJD knowingly opened the door to insurance discussion. | Yes; PJD’s conduct amounted to inviting error; but still not prejudicial under governing standard. |
| Was there a collateral-source/prejudice issue regarding insurance evidence? | PJD argued collateral-source concerns were violated and caused prejudice. | Ex-Amish contends the collateral-source rule was violated by the evidence. | Not dispositive; court did not reach final collateral-source ruling given other dispositive grounds. |
| Is evidence about damages prejudicial when the jury finds no liability? | PJD asserts damages evidence could prejudice the jury even with zero liability. | Ex-Amish argues damages references are harmless where liability is not found. | Not necessary to resolve; reasoning left unresolved due to dispositive ruling on insurance issue. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting a new trial on the stated grounds? | PJD claims the court abused discretion because no substantial prejudice was shown. | Ex-Amish claims the court correctly found prejudice from insurance references. | No; the grant was an abuse of discretion—reversed and judgment reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Whiteside, 34 S.W.3d 420 (Mo.App.W.D.2000) (insurance references can be reversible error if done in bad faith)
- Steele v. Evenflo, 147 S.W.3d 781 (Mo.App.E.D.2004) (timely objection required to preserve error; failure to object forfeits thirty)
- MFA, Inc. v. Dettler, 817 S.W.2d 658 (Mo.App.S.D.1991) (defense counsel misconduct and lack of timely objection affects reversal)
- Gilmore v. Union Const. Co., 439 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.banc 1969) (timely objection required to avoid prejudicial error)
- Crabtree v. Reed, 494 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.banc 1973) (collateral source objections must be timely and specific)
- Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (when trial evidence is cumulative objections may be waived)