LARGEJURYVERDICTARTICLE
012
YOU’VE BEEN HIT WITH A
LARGE JURY VERDICT.
NOW WHAT?
AUTHOR: Whitney Harvey
Excessive jury verdicts are typically challenged through
motions for new trial. A new trial may, however, present
additional challenges to clients: namely, additional trial
expenses, as well as the delayed adjudication of claims.
Fortunately, there is a vehicle for contesting excessive verdicts
which, if successful, obviates the need for a second trial.
Pursuant to Rule 59(i)(1), Ariz.R.Civ.P., the trial court has the
authority to reduce a damages award to an amount deemed
supported by the evidence (referred to as remittitur). The
remitted damages award is, however, conditioned upon the
plaintiff’s acceptance. Id.
The exercise of the power of remittitur rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Spur Feeding Co. v. Fernandez,
106 Ariz. 143, 149, 472 P.2d 12, 18 (1970) (affirming trial court’s
remittitur); Duncan v. State, 157 Ariz. 56, 63, 754 P.2d 1160,
1167 (App. 1988) (same). When the trial court orders remittitur,
that ruling is accorded “[t]he greatest possible discretion
because, like the jury, [the trial court] has had the opportunity
to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of witnesses.”
Mammo v. State, 138 Ariz. 528, 533–34, 675 P.2d 1347, 1352–53
(App. 1983).
EMAIL: [email protected]
BIO: jshfirm.com/whitneymharvey
Although a remitted damages award may be rejected by the
opposing party, it is a valuable tool that can be used to achieve
a reasonable settlement. Pursuant to Rule 59(i)(1), Ariz.R.Civ.P.,
the court must order a new trial if the opposing party rejects
the proposed remittitur. As noted above, however, it may be
disadvantageous for the parties to proceed with a second trial.
The risks associated with a second trial are typically shared
by the plaintiff. If fault is disputed, the plaintiff bears the risk
of not recovering anything during the second trial. Even if fault
is not disputed, the plaintiff risks recovering less than the
remitted award.
A remitted damages award also provides the plaintiff with
an objective view of the value of his or her case, which may
have been inflated, then sanctioned by a runaway jury. The
issue of inflated damages is one that defense counsel face
time and time again. Quite often, it is the mistaken evaluation
of claims that drives a case to trial, in lieu of settlement.
Remittitur provides an objective evaluation of the plaintiff’s
damages which, in turn, may facilitate reasonable settlement
negotiations.