Preview:

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S


BARBARA COLEMAN, individually and as next friend of RONALD L. COLEMAN, II, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, v

UNPUBLISHED January 10, 1997

No. 185438 Berrien Circuit Court LC No. 90000424 CK

ALBERT'S INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.

Before: Marilyn Kelly, P.J., and Neff and J. Stempien,* JJ. PER CURIAM. This appeal comes before this Court on remand from the Supreme Court for consideration as on leave granted. 448 Mich 915; 533 NW2d 585 (1995). Plaintiffs challenge the trial court's decision to order remittitur. Defendant cross-appeals from the $100,000 verdict which the jury returned in favor of plaintiffs. We affirm the jury verdict and vacate the remittitur. I Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on the verdict being against the great weight of the evidence. It asserts that the court acted on the erroneous belief that it could not consider the credibility of the witnesses when addressing the merits of the motion. Defendant is correct that a judge may grant a new trial based on the great weight of the evidence upon finding that the testimony of witnesses for the prevailing party was not credible. People v Herbert , 444 Mich 466, 476-477; 511 NW2d 654 (1993). However, after reviewing the record, * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

we find that the trial court did assess the credibility of plaintiff's witness Kelley, finding that she made a good appearance and was believable. Therefore, the argument is without merit. Moreover, the judge was not obligated to consider the credibility of plaintiffs' expert in ruling on the motion for a new trial. The expert testified only regarding whether there was a special relationship between the parties. The judge granted a directed verdict for defendant on that issue. Therefore, whether the judge found the expert unbelievable is inconsequential to defendant's great weight challenge. II Our review of the record persuades us that the trial court did abuse its discretion in granting defendant's request for remittitur. Phillips v Deihm, 213 Mich App 389, 404; 541 NW2d 566 (1995). Judges should exercise restraint in allowing remittitur. Hines v Grand Trunk W R Co, 151 Mich App 585, 595; 391 NW2d 750 (1985). The proper consideration in determining the merits of a motion for remittitur is whether the evidence supported the jury award. Id. The determination must be based on objective criteria regarding the conduct of the trial and the evidence adduced. Id. Objective criteria include whether the verdict was influenced by bias or prejudice. Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 436; 481 NW2d 718 (1991). The proper measure of damages for an insurance agent's failure to procure insurance is the amount that would have been due under the policy properly obtained, plus consequential damages. 3 Couch on Insurance 3d,

Download BARBARA COLEMAN V ALBERTS INSUR AGENCY.pdf

Michigan Law