As a matter of first impression, the adequacy of a jury's verdict in an underinsured motorist action should be reviewed by the same standards as the adequacy of a jury's verdict in a traditional tort case.

The plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident and settled with the tortfeasor's insurer for the policy limits. The plaintiff claimed she suffered injuries to her neck requiring surgery. Her medical expert testified that the accident necessitated her surgery but admitted that she did not tell him about her subsequent motor vehicle accident and that he had not seen her medical records. The records indicated that the plaintiff suffered from severe neck pains pre-existing the first accident. The jury found the first accident was not the proximate cause of her surgery and awarded the plaintiff medical expenses incurred after her personal injury protection benefits covering the first accident expired, up to the date of her second accident, but the jury did not award any damages for pain and suffering. The plaintiff argued that the jury's failure to award her damages for pain and suffering rendered the verdict inadequate as an award for medical expenses necessarily implied pain and suffering. The court held that the adequacy of a jury's verdict in a UIM case should be reviewed by the same standard as the adequacy of a jury's verdict in a traditional tort case. The court's finding is premised on the notion that the plaintiff's insurance carrier is responsible to the plaintiff only to the extent which the tortfeasor, had he or she been adequately insured, would have been responsible to the plaintiff. The court disagreed with the plaintiff, finding the jury properly awarded nothing for noneconomic damages because the issue of the causation of her injuries was disputed and the evidence of her pain and suffering was premised exclusively on her subjective complaints. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011