Berardo v. Felderman-SwearingenBerardo v. Felderman-Swearingen
Dennis C. Mahoney and Amanda I. Patton, for Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Jamey T. Pregon, for Defendant-Appellee.
{¶1} Luigi and Tina Berardo appeal the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denying their pоst-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, additur or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages. However, because we have no jurisdiction to entertain the аppeal, we dismiss it.
{¶2} In December 2015, the Berardos were injured in a car accident when a car driven by Devin Q. Felderman-Swearingen collided with their car. The Bеrardos were insured under an automobile liability policy with Progressive Specialty Insurance Company (“Progressive“), which provided uninsured/underinsured-motorist covеrage and medical-payments coverage. Progressive paid medical bills on behalf of both Luigi and Tina Berardo for treatment of their injuries sustained in the accident. Luigi Berardo was insured under an individual health insurance policy through Humana, which paid medical bills for the treatment of his injuries.
{¶3} In December 2017, the Berardоs filed an action against Felderman-Swearingen, Progressive, and Humana. The Berardos alleged that they were injured as a result of Felderman-Swearingen‘s negligеnce. They alleged that Humana and Progressive, having paid for medical expenses incurred by the Berardos for injuries sustained in the accident, should assert thеir subrogation interests in the action or be forever barred. In addition, the Berardos alleged that they were entitled to a judgment against Progressive under the terms of their uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage because their injuries and damages exceeded the insurance coverage of Felderman-Swearingen‘s insurance policy.
{¶4} Felderman-Swearingen filed an answer denying liability. Progressive filed an answer and asserted a cross-claim against Felderman-Swearingen. Humanа filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to intervene as a party-plaintiff.
{¶6} On April 19, 2019, the trial court granted Humana‘s motion to dismiss, and granted Humana‘s motion to intervene. The court deemed Humana‘s intervening complaint, which asserted clаims against Felderman-Swearingen and Progressive, filed as of the date of the court‘s entry.
{¶7} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on April 22. The jury entered verdicts in favor of both of the Berardos against Felderman-Swearingen. The jury awarded Luigi Berardo damages in the amount of $23,677, $19,677 of which was for medical expenses and $4,000 of which was for past noneconomic damages. The jury awarded $0 to Luigi Berardo for past economic damages and for future noneconomiс damages. The jury awarded Tina Berardo damages in the amount of $9,853, all of which was for medical expenses. The jury awarded Tina Berardo $0 for past economic damages, $0 for past noneconomic damages, and $0 for future noneconomic damages.
{¶8} The Berardos filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, additur or, in the alternative, a new trial. They asserted that the jury‘s findings for noneconomic damages, $4,000 for Luigi Berardo and $0 for Tina Berardo, were not supported by the evidence. They asked the trial court to award an additional $80,000 for Luigi Berardo and $25,000 for Tina Berardo, for noneconomic damages. In the alternative, they sought a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages.
{¶10} Following the hearing, the trial сourt denied the motion, stating in its entry, “Pursuant to Civil Rule 54, this is a final appealable order.” At the time of the trial court‘s judgment, the Berardos’ medical-payments subrogatiоn claim against Progressive and both insurers’ claims against Felderman-Swearingen, and Humana‘s claim against Progressive remained pending. The Berardos now appeal.
{¶11} Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders. See
{¶12}
{¶13} We ordered the parties to submit supplеmental briefs to address whether the trial court‘s judgment was a final, appealable order. In his supplemental brief, Felderman-Swearingen contends that it was his bеlief that the Berardos had
{¶14} The Berardos contend that the insurers’ subrogation claims are derivative and do not vest until a verdict is finalized and they are paid. However, a verdict was rendered in their favоr, and the subrogation claims which were ripe for decision remain unresolved.
{¶15} Felderman-Swearingen also argues that a judgment that resolves an insured‘s claim аgainst a tortfeasor constitutes a final, appealable order despite the lack of
{¶16} Felderman-Swearingen acknowledges that the trial court‘s entry lacked the
{¶17} Although the trial court‘s entry cited
{¶18} Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and for that reason, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.