An appellate court in Kentucky has vacated a trial court's judgment in favor of an auto insurer, ruling that the trial court should not have sua sponte included an interrogatory in the jury instructions asking if the insurer had met its contractual obligations to the insured.
The Case
After Lilly Sullivan's pickup truck was damaged in a one-vehicle wreck, her auto insurer, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, declared the pickup to be a total loss because the estimate to repair it exceeded 75 percent of its $7,950 value under the National Automobile Dealer's Association Price Guide (the "Blue Book").
Liberty, however, valued the pickup at a little more than $6,000 based on three reports it obtained from an entity that valued vehicles for insurers.
Dissatisfied with Liberty's valuations, Ms. Sullivan sued. She alleged that Liberty had not offered her fair market value for the pickup and had not reimbursed her for loss of its use.
Thereafter, Liberty sent Ms. Sullivan a check for $6,355, which she cashed, but the lawsuit continued.
The dispute proceeded to a jury trial. The trial court sua sponte gave a preemptive interrogatory to the jury, over Ms. Sullivan's objection, that asked if Liberty had "complied with its obligations to Plaintiff Lilly Sullivan pursuant to its contract of insurance with her."
The jury answered yes, the trial court entered a judgment in Liberty's favor, and Ms. Sullivan appealed.
Her primary argument was that the interrogatory was confusing, overly broad, and addressed issues not presented by the pleadings and proof.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court vacated and remanded, finding that the trial court had erred by sua sponte including an interrogatory in the jury instructions asking if Liberty had met its contractual obligations to Ms. Sullivan.
In its decision, the appellate court explained that trial courts generally may include interrogatories in instructions asking the jury to make a "finding upon each issue of fact." That rule, the appellate court continued, was sound because a jury's "only function is to decide disputed issues of fact."
Here, the appellate court observed, the only disputed facts were the proper valuation of Ms. Sullivan's truck and whether she was entitled to funds for its loss of use. The appellate court then pointed out that the trial court gave an interrogatory that resulted in a jury verdict that addressed neither issue.
Rather, instead of resolving the two factual disputes, the interrogatory "functionally asked the jury to interpret [Ms.] Sullivan's facially unambiguous insurance policy," which was a legal question reserved for determination by the trial court, the appellate court said.
The appellate court held that the challenged instruction failed to accomplish the purpose of "fairly submitting the proper issue[s] to the jury" and deprived Ms. Sullivan of a determination of the only contested factual issues. It concluded that the error was not harmless, and it vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
The case is Sullivan v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 2017-ca-000595-mr (Ky. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2019). BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Kevin C. Burke Jamie K. Neal Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT: Jamie K. Neal Louisville, Kentucky. BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Douglas W. Langdon Christopher G. Johnson Liam E. Felsen Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE: Liam E. Felsen Louisville, Kentucky.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].