Riley v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 333 Conn. 60

Background

Fire damaged Riley’s home; Travelers investigated and denied coverage alleging arson and concealment; Riley sued for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
At the close of Riley’s case Travelers moved for a directed verdict on the emotional-distress claim; the trial court reserved decision under Practice Book §16-37 and Travelers presented its own evidence.
Some defense evidence tended to support Riley’s theory that Travelers’ investigation was negligent. The jury returned verdicts for Riley on both counts and awarded substantial damages.
Travelers renewed its insufficiency claim in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing the court should consider only the evidence from Riley’s case-in-chief because the court had reserved on the directed verdict.
The trial court denied JNOV after reviewing the whole trial record; the Appellate Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the waiver rule bars appellate review of a midtrial directed-verdict ruling when the court reserved decision under Practice Book §16-37 and the defendant then presented evidence	Riley: reservation under §16-37 preserves the issue for postverdict motion and waiver applies if defendant presents evidence	Travelers: reservation means JNOV must be decided solely on evidence from plaintiff’s case-in-chief; waiver rule should not apply	Held: Waiver rule applies; once defendant presents evidence after reservation it waives right to challenge sufficiency based only on plaintiff’s case; court may consider all evidence before jury when ruling on JNOV.
Whether Practice Book §16-37’s text or history prevents courts from considering defense evidence when ruling on postverdict sufficiency motions	Riley: §16-37 treats reservation as submission to jury; postverdict motion incorporates preverdict grounds and should be judged on the record actually considered by the jury	Travelers: §16-37 contemplates limiting review to plaintiff’s proof; fairness requires that limitation given tactical dilemma	Held: §16-37 does not limit review to plaintiff-only evidence; historical evolution and the rule’s purpose support reviewing all evidence before the jury.
Whether applying the waiver rule in civil cases with multiple claims/special defenses is fundamentally unfair	Riley: tactical choices are routine; truth-seeking and finality weigh in favor of reviewing the full record	Travelers: reservation forces an unfair choice and may compel strategic forfeiture	Held: Not fundamentally unfair; the rule promotes truth-seeking and is consistent with longstanding practice.
Whether the Appellate Court’s affirmation should be reversed	Riley: Affirmance proper because defendant waived relying on plaintiff-only record and did not challenge sufficiency of the entire record	Travelers: Sought reversal based on alleged legal-error limitation	Held: Affirmed; trial court correctly considered the whole record and denied JNOV.

Key Cases Cited

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 241 Conn. 749 (1997) (discusses waiver rule when party presents defense evidence after denial of directed verdict)
State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218 (2004) (applies waiver rule in criminal context and explains truth-seeking rationale)
State v. Higgins, 74 Conn. App. 473 (2003) (distinguished: waiver not applied where criminal rules forbid reservation of decision)
Cinque v. Orlando, 140 Conn. 591 (1954) (trial court may consider all evidence before the jury irrespective of source)
Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U.S. 17 (1893) (recognizes defendant testimony can supply missing link in plaintiff’s proof)
Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935) (historic support for reserving legal questions and later disposing of verdict)
Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33 (2005) (standard of appellate review for directed verdict/JNOV)