{ "id": 3218793, "name": "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY J. ELLISON, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Ellison", "decision_date": "2004-11-24", "docket_number": "No. 1-03-1368", "first_page": "387", "last_page": "392", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "354 Ill. App. 3d 387" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "420 N.E.2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "848", "parenthetical": "court ordered a new trial on damages only, or additur if defendant consented, when jury did not award plaintiff the full amount he personally paid, even though evidence proved the larger amount of total damages" }, { "page": "848-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 772", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3118586 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "773", "parenthetical": "court ordered a new trial on damages only, or additur if defendant consented, when jury did not award plaintiff the full amount he personally paid, even though evidence proved the larger amount of total damages" }, { "page": "774-75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/95/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" }, { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3131077 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "407" }, { "page": "408" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/108/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "679 N.E.2d 1202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1213", "parenthetical": "although court found defendant not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant entitled to a new trial because certain errors may have prejudiced jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ill. 2d 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 544914 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120", "parenthetical": "although court found defendant not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant entitled to a new trial because certain errors may have prejudiced jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/176/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 N.E.2d 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512-13" }, { "page": "512-13" }, { "page": "513", "parenthetical": "court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for new trial because credibility issues existed in regard to plaintiffs medical treatments" }, { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3292317 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/151/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "767 N.E.2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" }, { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 Ill. App. 3d 915", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2183331 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "916" }, { "page": "917" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/328/0915-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 N.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2866138 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "783 N.E.2d 152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" }, { "page": "157" }, { "page": "157" }, { "page": "157" }, { "page": "157" }, { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 1001", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 637150 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1004" }, { "page": "1006" }, { "page": "1006-07" }, { "page": "1006" }, { "page": "1007" }, { "page": "1007" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/335/1001-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5426498 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/63/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "810 N.E.2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 Ill. App. 3d 972", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4023475 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "974" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/348/0972-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 551, "char_count": 12237, "ocr_confidence": 0.715, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.673639387944872e-08, "percentile": 0.2934709707013807 }, "sha256": "d39629c9575986ff4ec1c4fc8e1b3f05f608e9f83404bd55489f616e0daf3b32", "simhash": "1:22d408d438cd9d04", "word_count": 2052 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:31:29.254043+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY J. ELLISON, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GALLAGHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm) brought this subrogation action in the circuit court of Cook County seeking recovery of a damage award that it paid as a result of an automobile accident between its insured, David Wilson, and defendant Larry Ellison. A jury found in favor of Wilson and State Farm on the issue of liability and awarded Wilson all of his pleaded damages; however, the jury did not award State Farm damages for the bills that it paid on Wilson\u2019s behalf. On appeal, State Farm contends that it is inconsistent for the jury to find defendant was negligent as to Wilson but not as to State Farm. State Farm seeks alternative remedies of a new trial on liability and damages, a new trial on damages only, or additur in the amount of $4,960.79 with defendant\u2019s consent. We find that because liability is not at issue, the damage amount is fixed and separate from the issue of liability and the jury did not reach a compromise verdict, it is necessary to remand this case for a new trial on damages only unless defendant consents to additur.\nBACKGROUND\nState Farm has submitted a bystander\u2019s report in lieu of a trial transcript. According to the bystander\u2019s report, on December 21, 1998, Wilson\u2019s vehicle was struck from behind by a flatbed truck. Defendant\u2019s vehicle had collided with the flatbed truck, pushing it into Wilson\u2019s 1997 Ford Taurus, and defendant admitted he was not looking at the road at the time of the crash. Wilson\u2019s policy with State Farm provided that Wilson had a $500 deductible. After Wilson\u2019s vehicle was repaired, he was given a \u201cpaid in full\u201d bill from the repair shop. The repair shop told Wilson that State Farm had paid the entire bill except for Wilson\u2019s $500 deductible. (Wilson is not a party to this appeal.) State Farm paid for $5,405.79 in repair expenses (minus Wilson\u2019s deductible) and for $55 in chiropractic care for Wilson, for a total of $4,960.79. Finding in favor of Wilson and State Farm, the jury awarded Wilson his out-of-pocket damages of $1,384.77, which included car rental expenses and his $500 deductible; however, the jury awarded State Farm nothing.\nAccording to the bystander\u2019s report, the trial court excused State Farm from having a representative present at trial. Nevertheless, defendant argued to the court that State Farm did not meet its burden of proof because no evidence was presented that State Farm paid for Wilson\u2019s damages.\nANALYSIS\nWe first note that defendant has not filed an appellee\u2019s brief before this court. Because the record regarding the issues on appeal is simple and the claimed errors can be decided without the aid of an appellee\u2019s brief, we will decide the merits of this appeal on the appellant\u2019s brief alone. In re Marriage of Loomis, 348 Ill. App. 3d 972, 974, 810 N.E.2d 633, 635 (2004), citing First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493, 495 (1976).\nTRIAL COURT\u2019S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL\nState Farm first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for a new trial. State Farm contends that the court\u2019s ruling was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the jury\u2019s findings were unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon the evidence. State Farm argues that defendant\u2019s negligence was proven at trial and that the jury\u2019s verdict was inconsistent with that proof, because under the theory of subrogation, State Farm\u2019s cause of action arises from its contract with Wilson. State Farm\u2019s and Wilson\u2019s liability issues were identical and therefore it is inconsistent to find in favor of Wilson and State Farm but only award damages to Wilson. Further, State Farm asserts that its subrogation rights were never at issue at trial because defendant failed to file an answer to the plaintiffs amended complaint, thus admitting all allegations in the complaint.\nA judgment notwithstanding the verdict is entered \u201c \u2018only in those cases in which all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors [the] movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.\u2019 \u201d Merrill v. Hill, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 1004, 783 N.E.2d 152, 155 (2002), quoting Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510, 229 N.E.2d 504, 513 (1967). In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mahr, 328 Ill. App. 3d 915, 916, 767 N.E.2d 494, 496 (2002), the court held that the trial court could not grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to increase the damages awarded because a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is limited to liability issues. Here, the amount of damages, not liability, is at issue; therefore, the trial court properly denied State Farm\u2019s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nWe next consider State Farm\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial. A court will order a new trial if the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the jury\u2019s findings are unreasonable, arbitrary and not based upon any of the evidence. Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 454, 603 N.E.2d 508, 512-13 (1992). A trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for a new trial, and absent a clear abuse of discretion, its decision will remain undisturbed. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 455, 603 N.E.2d at 512-13. To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion, a reviewing court should consider whether the jury\u2019s verdict was supported by the evidence and whether the losing party was denied a fair trial. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 455, 603 N.E.2d at 513 (court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for new trial because credibility issues existed in regard to plaintiffs medical treatments). Where evidence exists to support the jury verdict, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a motion for a new trial. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 456, 603 N.E.2d at 513.\nApplying the standard set forth in Maple, we find the jury\u2019s verdict unreasonable, arbitrary and not based on any of the evidence. Defendant admitted causing the collision, and the liability issues between Wilson and State Farm are indistinguishable. However, the jury awarded Wilson all of his out-of-pocket damages and awarded State Farm nothing. Under the theory of subrogation, State Farm\u2019s cause of action arises from the insurance contract it has with Wilson. The bystander\u2019s report indicates that plaintiffs submitted all the bills into evidence and Wilson testified that all of the bills had been paid; therefore, the jury was unreasonable in awarding to Wilson all of his costs but not also awarding State Farm the total amount of its damages. The fact that some of the expenses were paid by Wilson and others were covered by State Farm as his insurer does not alter defendant\u2019s liability or the total compensation that plaintiffs should be awarded. For those reasons, we agree with State Farm that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial. See generally Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95, 120, 679 N.E.2d 1202, 1213 (1997) (although court found defendant not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant entitled to a new trial because certain errors may have prejudiced jury).\nNEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES OR ADDITUR\nState Farm next contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm\u2019s motion for a new trial on damages only or additur. State Farm argues that the liability in this situation is clear, that a new trial on damages only would not be unfair to defendant and that the record does not suggest a compromise verdict. State Farm points out that the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wilson and State Farm against defendant and thus determined defendant\u2019s liability. State Farm asserts that because the paid auto repair bill, medical bill and car rental bill were presented to the jury, the issue of damages is separate from the question of liability.\nA new trial can be ordered if damages are \u201cmanifestly inadequate\u201d or if proven elements of damages were ignored or do not present a reasonable relationship to the amount of damage incurred. Merrill, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 1006, 783 N.E.2d at 157, citing Hollis v. R. Latoria Construction, Inc., 108 Ill. 2d 401, 407, 485 N.E.2d 4, 6 (1985). A new trial on damages may be ordered where (1) the jury\u2019s verdict on the question of liability is amply supported by the evidence; (2) the questions of damages and liability are so separate and distinct that a trial limited to the question of damages is not unfair to the defendant; and (3) the record suggests neither that the jury reached a compromise verdict, nor that, in some other identifiable manner, the error which resulted in the jury\u2019s awarding inadequate damages also affected its verdict on the question of liability. Merrill, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 1006-07, 783 N.E.2d at 157; Hollis, 108 Ill. 2d at 408, 485 N.E.2d at 7. In the alternative, additur is used to correct an omission of a liquidated damage or an easily calculated item of damage; however, additur can only be used to increase an award if defendant consents to it as an alternative to a new trial, even if the damages are liquidated or the evidence of damages is essentially undisputed. Merrill, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 1006, 783 N.E.2d at 157; Mahr, 328 Ill. App. 3d at 917, 767 N.E.2d at 496.\nIn Merrill, the plaintiff appealed because the jury found the defendant negligent but did not award the full amount of proven damages; the appellate court ordered a new trial on damages, finding that the case satisfied all the above criteria. Merrill, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 1007, 783 N.E.2d at 157. Illinois courts have held that an automobile repair bill is prima facie evidence of the necessity of such repairs. Merrill, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 1007, 783 N.E.2d at 157, quotin Ross v. Cortes, 95 Ill. App. 3d 772, 773, 420 N.E.2d 846, 848 (1981) (court ordered a new trial on damages only, or additur if defendant consented, when jury did not award plaintiff the full amount he personally paid, even though evidence proved the larger amount of total damages).\nThis case meets the criteria for a new trial on damages only, unless defendant consents on remand to an additur of $4,960.77. The first requirement is met: evidence of damages is amply supported by the receipts and testimony at trial. The record reveals copies of all paid bills stemming from the collision. Second, the issues of liability and damages are separate in this case. Defendant admitted that he caused the collision, and damages are separate and easily determinable. Third, there is no indication in the record that the jury reached a compromise verdict. The bystander\u2019s report indicated that defendant admitted liability at trial. Further, State Farm was not a party to the collision; therefore, no liability could be assessed against State Farm. The jury could not have awarded no damages to State Farm under the theory that State Farm bore some liability for the cause of the accident. Finally, the damages requested by State Farm are fixed and liquidated. Ross, 95 Ill. App. 3d at 774-75, 420 N.E.2d at 848-49.\nCLOSING REMARKS BY DEFENDANT\u2019S COUNSEL\nGiven the above findings, we need not address State Farm\u2019s contention that it is entitled to a new trial on damages because defendant\u2019s counsel made improper and inappropriate remarks in closing argument that prejudiced State Farm\u2019s case.\nCONCLUSION\nFor all of the reasons stated herein, we reverse the circuit court\u2019s order denying State Farm\u2019s motion for a new trial. This case is remanded for a new trial on damages only, unless defendant consents to additur in the amount of $4,960.77.\nReversed and remanded.\nO\u2019BRIEN and NEVILLE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GALLAGHER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Steven D. Gertler & Associates, of Chicago (Susan L. Meadows, of counsel), for appellant.", "No brief filed for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY J. ELLISON, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1-03-1368\nOpinion filed November 24, 2004.\nSteven D. Gertler & Associates, of Chicago (Susan L. Meadows, of counsel), for appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee." }, "file_name": "0387-01", "first_page_order": 405, "last_page_order": 410 }