2013 Ohio 3884
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On August 13, 2008 Bernard R. Williams rear-ended Janet Starner. Starner was insured by State Farm and made a UM/UIM claim.
- State Farm paid Starner $100,000 under UM/UIM coverage and sued Williams for subrogation in Licking County Common Pleas to recover that payment.
- Jury trial occurred November 27–28, 2012. During trial defense counsel referenced Williams’s insurance; the court instructed jurors to disregard but denied a mistrial at that time.
- After deliberations the jury returned inconsistent paperwork: interrogatory A found Williams’ negligence caused injury (six jurors signed), interrogatory B awarded $0 (signed by six jurors, not the same six), and the general verdict forms both favored plaintiff and defendant with overlapping, nonidentical juror signatures.
- State Farm moved for a mistrial immediately before jurors were discharged; the court kept the verdicts, released jurors, and later granted State Farm’s motion for new trial and denied Williams’s motion to journalize the defense verdict.
- Williams also moved for directed verdict (no standing/subrogation proof); the trial court denied it. Williams appealed, raising three assignments of error; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting new trial based on inconsistent verdicts/interrogatories | State Farm argued it timely raised the inconsistency before jury discharge and that the court properly exercised its options under Civ.R. 49(B) | Williams argued State Farm waived objection by not objecting before jury discharge and thus new trial was improper | Court held State Farm objected before discharge; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting new trial |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to journalize defense verdict | State Farm opposed journalization because verdicts/interrogatories were inconsistent and required further action | Williams argued inconsistent verdicts were waived and the defense verdict should be journalized | Court held denial proper because State Farm timely objected and inconsistencies justified not journalizing verdicts |
| Whether trial court erred in denying directed verdict on subrogation/standing | State Farm relied on testimony that Starner was insured, State Farm paid UM/UIM benefits and policy provided subrogation rights | Williams argued State Farm failed to introduce written policy, assignment, or subrogation agreement and so had no standing | Court held evidence (insured status, payment, testimony the policy provided subrogation) sufficed; directed verdict denial affirmed |
| Standard of review for new trial and directed verdict | State Farm applied abuse-of-discretion for new trial and Civ.R. 50/Civ.R. 49 standards for verdict/interrogatories | Williams urged the court to apply waiver rules and legal sufficiency for directed verdict | Court applied abuse-of-discretion to new trial and de novo review for directed verdict; both rulings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 1986) (purpose of jury interrogatories described)
- Cooper v. Metal Sales Mfg. Corp., 104 Ohio App.3d 34 (Ohio Ct. App.) (objection to inconsistent interrogatory answers must be made before jury discharge)
- Haehnlein v. Henry, 41 Ohio App.3d 233 (Ohio Ct. App.) (options when jury answers conflict with general verdict)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio v. Hrenko, 72 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1995) (distinguishes conventional and equitable subrogation)
- Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Brooks, 60 Ohio App.2d 37 (Ohio Ct. App.) (equitable subrogation may apply absent written subrogation agreement)
- Groob v. Keybank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (directed verdict review is de novo)
- Hargrove v. Tanner, 66 Ohio App.3d 693 (Ohio Ct. App.) (directed verdict requirements and plaintiff's burden)