INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Who’s at fault?
On November 19, 2015, Roger Burns, Scott Eastman, and Jillian Peterson were involved in a three-car consecutive rear-end collision heading eastbound in the far right-hand lane of Interstate 10 where Interstate 10 exits to merge onto Interstate 210 East in Calcasieu Parish. It is undisputed that Peterson was driving the tailing, final vehicle of the three cars when, during a period of congested, heavy traffic, she rear-ended the car in front her, driven by Eastman, who then struck the car in front of him, driven by Burns. Eastman was taken to the hospital complaining of neck, head, and back pain and was thereafter treated by numerous medical providers, one of which was Dr. Shane Rider, a chiropractor.
The Eastmans filed suit for damages naming Peterson and her insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as defendants. The Eastmans alleged that Peterson was solely liable for the accident because she negligently rear-ended Eastman’s vehicle. Eastman sought damages for past, present, and future medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, and mental anguish, along with future disability, and future loss of earnings and earning capacity. Mrs. Eastman sought damages for loss of consortium.
Peterson and State Farm denied the Eastmans’ allegations, contending that Eastman was comparatively at fault for the accident because he struck Burns’s vehicle before being rear-ended by Peterson. Peterson and State Farm alleged that Eastman’s first impact with Burns’s car created a sudden emergency or hazard for Peterson that impaired her ability to avoid a collision with Eastman’s vehicle. The defendants also disputed the severity of Eastman’s injuries caused by the accident and argued that a majority of his alleged injuries and damages were caused by a preexisting condition.
The defendants pointed to Dr. Rider’s treatments as proof that Eastman reached maximum medical improvement shortly after being treated by Dr. Rider and that most if not all of the subsequent treatment sought by Eastman related to preexisting conditions that Dr. Rider noted as early as 2009. They pointed out that Dr. Rider’s medical records reflected that Eastman had as many as 24 chiropractic visits with Dr. Rider from May 29, 2014, to August 24, 2014, all preceding the accident. The defendants alleged that Eastman’s pre-accident treatment with Dr. Rider dealt with the same symptoms and conditions for which Eastman sought treatment post-accident. The defendants also introduced evidence of CT scans performed on Eastman after the accident that reflected that chronic findings of Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis (DISH) were already present, with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.
The jury returned a verdict that found both Peterson and Eastman comparatively liable for the accident, assigning 50% fault to each. The jury further found that Eastman had been injured in the accident and awarded $19,732.14 in past and present medical expenses, $16,000 in past and present loss of enjoyment of life, $50,000 in past and present pain and suffering, and $5,000 in past and present mental anguish. The jury did not award damages for past and present disability, or for future medical expenses, future loss of earnings and earning capacity, future loss of enjoyment of life, future pain and suffering, future mental anguish, or future disability. The jury further awarded Mrs. Eastman $20,000 for loss of consortium.
Eastman then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or in the alternative, a motion for new trial. He argued that the jury erred as the evidence strongly and overwhelmingly favored a finding of sole liability on the part of Peterson. The motion further sought increased damages, including future damages.
After a hearing on Eastman’s motion, the trial judge granted the JNOV on the basis that “the findings by the jury were clearly erroneous and factually and legally unsupported in several of their determinations.” The trial court found Peterson solely liable for the accident, increased the past medical expenses award to $138,419.06, awarded future medical expenses in the amount of $625,875, awarded future loss of enjoyment of life, future pain and suffering, and future mental anguish in the amount of $150,000, and awarded future loss of earnings capacity in the amount of $130,000. The trial court maintained all other awards by the jury and signed a judgment in accordance with its JNOV ruling. In total, the trial court increased the award from $110,732.14 to $1,115,294.06. State Farm and Peterson appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court granted certiorari to review the lower courts’ judgments.
Conflicting, credible testimony was given as to whether Eastman collided with the vehicle ahead of him before being struck from behind by Peterson. Peterson testified that Eastman’s vehicle stopped suddenly, and that she did not observe any timely warning from the brake lights as to a sudden stop. She stated that had Eastman applied his brakes, giving a brake light warning attendant to a more controlled stop, then she would not have averted her attention to check her blind spot or check the left-hand lane. She indicated that Eastman’s negligence in not coming to a controlled stop decreased her ability to maintain what she felt was an initial, appropriate following distance.
More important, Burns testified that Eastman first collided with him before being rear-ended by Peterson. Faced with plausible, competing versions of the accident in question, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Eastman did in fact strike Burns’s vehicle before being struck from behind by Peterson, and that his negligence in colliding with Burns created a hazard that contributed to Peterson’s inability to avoid the accident.
The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the lower courts improperly reweighed the evidence, made credibility determinations as to the witness testimony, and ultimately substituted their judgment for that of the jury. Finding that the evidence did not so strongly and overwhelmingly favor the Eastmans that reasonable jurors could not reach different conclusions, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting the JNOV as to liability.
The court stated that the awards by the jury as they related to past and present damage, totaling $71,000, were left as rendered. Damages for future loss of enjoyment of life, future pain and suffering, and future mental anguish were set at $150,000.
The court found that the trial court erred in granting Eastman’s JNOV, as did the court of appeal in affirming the trial court’s judgment. The court reversed the court of appeal, vacated the judgment of the trial court, and reinstated the jury’s verdict.
Eastman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company—Supreme Court of Louisiana—No. 2023-C-01107—May 10, 2024.
