615 S.W.3d 277
Tex. App.2020Background
- This is a concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion (Justice Schenck) in a wrongful-death appeal arising from the death of Bhupinder Singh Deol.
- The jury awarded the Deol family approximately $15,065,000 in non-economic damages (loss of companionship and mental anguish) plus other awards; Gregory and New Prime appealed the sufficiency of those non-economic awards.
- At trial Jaswinder Chohan (the decedent’s wife) was the primary witness on emotional harm; there was little or no evidentiary proof about duration, needed treatment, or objective measures of impairment.
- Defense counsel’s closing argument included an improper “send a message” style damages pitch (an illustrative $39 million figure), which tracked the jury’s large awards.
- Justice Schenck concurs with most of the majority but dissents from the portion affirming the non-economic awards, arguing the court failed to perform the meaningful factual-sufficiency review required by Texas Supreme Court precedent (Saenz).
- Schenck contends the record supports entitlement to some non-economic recovery but not the amount awarded and urges use of objective tools (including comparison to like cases and remittitur/remand) to permit meaningful appellate review and satisfy due-process constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal/factual sufficiency of non-economic damages (existence vs. amount) | Existence: close family relationship/Chohan testimony suffices to support damages; amount left to jury discretion | Amount unsupported: record lacks evidence (duration, treatment, functional impact) tying to the large sums | Schenck: existence proven; amounts not supported by meaningful evidence — would not affirm the $15M awards absent remittitur or new trial |
| Effect of improper closing argument urging punitive/"send a message" damages | Counsel’s argument was improper but does not automatically require reversal | Improper argument infected the verdict and supports reversal | Schenck: improper argument alone does not mandate reversal, but it heightens the need for a meaningful evidentiary review of the award’s quantum |
| Use of comparisons to other cases / objective benchmarks in review | Comparisons are of little help; jury discretion should be respected | Comparative awards are a proper tool to assess excessiveness and lend objectivity | Schenck: comparisons to like wrongful-death awards are appropriate and necessary for meaningful appellate review |
| Appropriate remedy when awards are excessive (remittitur vs. remand vs. affirm) | Affirm verdicts under deferential review unless record clearly shocks the conscience | Reverse or remand for new trial / order remittitur where awards lack evidentiary support | Schenck: record lacks basis for $15M; would require remittitur or remand for new trial rather than affirming the awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996) (appellate courts must conduct a meaningful factual-sufficiency review of mental-anguish awards)
- Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. 1986) (proof of close familial bond supports recovery for loss of companionship/mental anguish)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (historical overview and limits on emotional-distress recovery)
- Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (both existence and amount of mental-anguish damages must be supported by evidence)
- MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (damages require best available evidence that affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss)
- Gulf Coast Inv. Corp. v. Rothman, 506 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. 1974) (rule that jury speculation/guess is insufficient for damages)
- Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. 2018) (approving comparison to like cases as part of review)
- Bennett v. Grant, 525 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2017) (application of meaningful review to non-economic damages)
- Bunton v. Bentley, 153 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. 2004) (Supreme Court’s treatment of non-economic damages)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (standards for setting aside jury findings as against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence)
- Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (federal due-process concern: meaningful appellate review constrains arbitrary awards)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (federal guideposts and appellate review requirements for excessive damages)