Richard Angino v. Cincinnati Insurance Co
696 F. App'x 572
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2014 Richard and Alice Angino were in a car accident with an under‑insured driver; liability of the tortfeasor was conceded. Mr. Angino claimed permanent disabling neck/back injuries and lost earning capacity.
- The Anginos settled with the tortfeasor’s insurer for policy limits ($30,000) and sued their own insurer, Cincinnati Insurance, for underinsured motorist benefits (seeking up to $1,000,000).
- Cincinnati conceded negligence and causation for a temporary back strain but disputed that the accident caused Mr. Angino’s alleged permanent, degenerative injuries; its medical expert said those were pre‑existing/age‑related.
- Near trial the Anginos asked the court to treat the concession as precluding the jury from deciding causation for any injuries; the court instead gave a general factual‑causation instruction and submitted causation for the permanent injuries to the jury.
- The jury found no factual causation for the harms claimed and returned a verdict for Cincinnati. The Anginos moved for a new trial; the district court denied it but offered a limited new damages trial solely on the conceded temporary injury, which the Anginos declined and immediately appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by submitting factual causation to the jury instead of directing a verdict/new trial on all causation issues | Angino: concession as to one injury precluded jury from finding no causation for any injuries; therefore new trial on damages for all injuries was required | Cincinnati: concession covered only the conceded injury; causation for other alleged injuries remained disputed and properly for the jury | Court: Pennsylvania law does not require directing verdict on all injuries; a general causation instruction was permissible and the district court did not err |
| Proper remedy when some causation is conceded but jury fails to find it | Angino: sought new trial on damages generally | Cincinnati: limited new trial only for the uncontroverted injury, if any relief warranted | Court: where partial causation is conceded, correct remedy is a new trial limited to the uncontroverted injury; district court offered that limited relief and Anginos forfeited it by immediate appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Elliot v. Ionta, 869 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2005) (where negligence and some causation are undisputed jury may not find no causation for at least some injuries)
- Andrews v. Jackson, 800 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same principle regarding uncontested causation)
- Smith v. Putter, 832 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to find any causation where some causation was uncontested requires new trial)
- Bostanic v. Barker‑Barto, 936 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 2007) (proper course is new trial limited to injuries uncontroverted by defense experts)
- Campagna v. Rogan, 829 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2003) (where extent/duration is contested, new trial limited to damages for uncontroverted injury is appropriate)
- Hyang v. Lynde, 820 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2003) (similar rule on limited retrial for conceded injuries)
- Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir. 1995) (standard of review for denial of a new trial)