Providing guidance on the rules for jury selection in trialsinvolving an insurer's interest, the Georgia Court of Appeals thisweek reversed a 2015 verdict that was favorable to State Farm.

The decision centers on Georgia's requirement that jurors mustbe questioned about their financial or personal interests in anyinsurance company with money on the line in a trial. In an opinionissued Aug. 15, 2016, Judge John Ellington made clear thatlitigants have the right to demand that jurors answer the questionsin open court with all parties present. A jury administratorscreening the pool of potential jurors before dispatching them tocourtrooms doesn't fully satisfy the requirement.

A “party that asks that qualification of prospective jurors bedone during voir dire and in open court is entitled to thatprocedure,” Ellington wrote.

Ellington, joined by Judge Amanda Mercier and Judge ElizabethBranch in judgment only, found fault with Cobb County State CourtJudge Carl Bowers, who denied a request from plaintiffs' counsel toquestion the potential jurors about their interest in State Farm.Bowers said an administrator had already posed the question in thejury assembly room and ruled out those who said they hadconnections to State Farm.

Jury room is 'three-ring circus'

“The problem with qualifying jurors in the jury assembly room isit's like a three-ring circus,” said C. Cyrus Malone III ofFreisem, Macon, Swann & Malone, who raised the issue on appeal.“People are coming in. People are eating breakfast. People areleaving. Everyone's yammering and talking and no one'slistening.”

Malone represents Barbara Mordecai in a lawsuit against MichaelCain. She suffered a broken neck when his vehicle crossed thecenter line and hit her car head-on, lawyers on both sides said.The jury awarded her $58,000 for her medical bills plus $15,000 forpain and suffering. The defense considered the case a win for StateFarm, Mordecai's uninsured motorist coverage provider, whichdefended Cain to protect its $1 million in available insurance.

Malone said he understands why defense lawyers don't like totalk to jurors about the insurance companies whose assets they'reprotecting. But, he added, “If the Georgia Supreme Court says it'sgot to be done, I'm going to ask for them to do it. That's myjob.”

Trying to 'humanize' individual defendants

The reason defense lawyers don't like to talk about insurance isthey don't want the jury to see deep pockets, said John Alday ofWaldon Adelman Castilla Hiestand & Prout who represented Cain.It's the same reason that State Farm's attorneys chose to defendCain at trial rather than the company.

“You want the jury to humanize your client. It's hard tohumanize a corporation,” Alday said.

Ellington's decision drew heavily on the 2014 Georgia SupremeCourt ruling in Conley v. Ford. In Conley, thehigh court held: “It is the long-standing rule in Georgia that, toensure the right of trial by an impartial jury, a party to a civilcase is entitled to have the jury qualified by the court as to anyinsurance carrier with a financial interest in the case. It is anequally long-standing Georgia rule that where a civil jury was notproperly qualified in this way … a new trial must be ordered.”

Ellington's opinion “seems like a straightforward application ofclearly established law,” said Jeffrey Harris, a trial lawyer withHarris Penn Lowery who has been involved in post-Conleylitigation.

“The problem with prequalifying is there is not a record of whatwas said, how it was said, who responded, etc.” Harris said.“Qualifying as to insurance needs to be done in court so you canfollow up, explore the nature of the potential conflict, and havean appropriate record.”