Shadwrick v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Shadwrick v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) filed an action against Catherine Shadwrick, seeking a judgment declaring that Shadwrick committed arson by burning her house and that it was therefore not obligated to pay Shadwrick any proceeds from her homeowner’s insurance policy. At the close of State Farm’s case, Shadwrick made a motion for a directed verdict based on the alleged insufficiency of State Farm’s evidence.
The jury returned a verdict for State Farm, and in its order entering judgment on the verdict the trial court stated that State Farm had “no obligаtion to pay any proceeds under the fire policy ... [because]
Shadwrick appeals from the denial of her directed verdict motion and the denial of her motion for new trial or to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. Both а motion for directed verdict and for j.n.o.v. may be used to test the sufficiency of the evidence. King Mines Resort, Inc. v. Malachi Mining & Minerals, Inc.,
“One who, on appellate review, seeks, on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the reversal of an adverse judgment and the entry of a judgment in his favor, must meet a two-prоnged test: (1) He must ask for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, specifying ‘insufficiency of the evidence’ (lack of proof) as a ground; and (2) he must renew this motion by wаy of a timely filed post-judgment motion for J.N.O.V., again specifying the same insufficiency-of-the-evidence ground. See Rule 50, A.R.Civ.P., and Committee Comments; Bains v. Jameson,507 So.2d 504 , 505 (Ala.1987); and Ritch v. Waldrop,428 So.2d 1 (Ala.1982).
“The failure to comply with the two-pronged test does not preclude the party from arguing ‘insufficiency’ or that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, as a ground for a new trial, either before the trial court on a pоst-judgment motion for a new trial or before an appellate court on an appeal following an adverse ruling by the trial court. In that event, however, even if the reviewing court finds thаt the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment, the only relief that can be granted is a new trial, not a J.N.O.V. See Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Parker,449 So.2d 233 , 236 (Ala.1984).
Because Shadwrick did not move for j.n. o.v., we address her appeal only in relation to the grounds raised in the motion for new trial: (1) that State Farm “failed to establish a prima facie case [because State Farm] failed to connect the defendant with thе burning of her residence” and (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow Sandra Apolinsky to testify on behalf of Shadwrick. Shadwrick seems to argue both that State Farm’s evidence was insufficient and thаt the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; as we point out later in this opinion, State Farm had sufficient evidence to present its claim to the jury and the jury’s verdict was not аgainst the great weight of the evidence, so we do not determine if Shadwrick’s first ground was a challenge to sufficiency or to weight.
For State Farm to establish a pri-ma facie case of arson for the purpose of denying Shadwrick’s insurance coverage, it must prove that (1) the fire was intentionally set; (2) Shadwrick had a motive for committing the alleged arson; and (3) Shadwrick eithеr set the fire or had it set, which may be proved by unexplained surrounding circumstantial evidence implicating Shadwrick. United Services Automobile Association v. Wade,
The first element that State Farm had to prove was that the fire was intentionally set. Wade; Mueller; Stone. It is undisputed that the fire was intentionally set. Shadwrick herself states that State Farm produced evidence “sufficient to establish the incendiary origin of the fire.”
The second element that State Farm had to prove was that Shadwrick had a motive for committing the alleged arson. Wade; Mueller; Stone. State Farm produced evidence indicating that Shadwrick owed $37,-500 to AmSouth Bank and $12,500 to her mother and that both debts werе secured by mortgages on the house; that Shad-wrick was attempting to sell her house and move in with her boyfriend, who was unemployed; that she had been unsuccessful in selling the house; that the proceeds from the fire insurance policy might allow her to pay off both debts, satisfying both mortgages, and have $8,000-$10,000 left over; that she had insufficient income to support herself as a full-time student and hеr 9- and 11-year-old daughters. To refute State Farm’s evidence of motive, Shad-wrick produced evidence that State Farm had exaggerated her financial difficulties and that she had lost irrеplaceable items of sentimental value in the fire. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, State Farm’s evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to determine that Shadwrick had a motive to commit arson.
The third element that State Farm had to prove was that Shadwrick either set the fire or had it set, Wade; Mueller, Stone. State Farm produced evidence that Shad-wrick was staying only 4.8 miles away from hеr house the night it burned and that even in noontime traffic it took only seven minutes to travel from where she was staying to her house; that Shadwrick and her mother had the only keys to the house and that when thе firefighters arrived all the doors and windows were locked; that Shadwrick was the last person known to have been in the house before it burned; that Shadwrick had moved some personal items frоm her house to her boyfriend’s house; and that when Shadwrick’s next door neighbor called her to say that the house was on fire, Shadwrick seemed not to be concerned and, indeed, did not go tо check on the house until the next day. Considering that evidence, taken as a whole, we hold that State Farm produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine whether Shadwrick either set the fire or had it set. Thus, State Farm presented sufficient evidence of all the elements of its arson claim to allow the claim to be submitted to the jury.
To be sure, Shadwrick produced contrary evidence. She points out correctly that evidence of financial difficulties do not necessarily indicate that a person has a motive to commit arson; that moving some personal items to her boyfriend’s house does not necessarily indicate that she intended to burn her house; and that there was evidence that her former husband besieged her with prank calls and that she thought the call from the woman who turned out to be her neighbor was another prank call set up by her husband. All that evidence and much more that Shadwrick presented аt trial and argues in her brief was presented to the jury, along with State Farm’s evidence.
Factual disputes are resolved by the trier of fact. United American Insurance Co v. Brumley,
The jury’s verdict in this case is neither plainly erroneous nor manifestly unjust. The trial court did not err in denying Shad-wrick’s motion for new trial based on either the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence.
Shadwrick also contends that the trial court erred by refusing to allow Sandra Apolinsky to testify on Shadwrick’s behalf. In an offer of proof, Shadwrick indicated that Apolinsky would testify that before Shadwrick and her former husband
The trial court seems to have excluded Apolinsky’s testimony because it determined thаt she was not an expert on sexual abuse of children. On appeal State Farm contests the relevancy of the testimony as well as Apolinsky’s qualifications as an expert. We will affirm a judgment appealed from if that judgment is supported by a valid legal ground. Smith v. Equifax; Tucker v. Nichols,
The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.