LAKE CHARLES – A Louisiana appeals court has fully affirmed a Calcasieu Parish court’s jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit, and restored a $475,000 award for loss of consortium to one of the plaintiffs.
Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judges Elizabeth A. Pickett, Van H. Kyzar and Jonathan W. Perry issued a ruling to that effect on June 26, in Charles Smith and Jodenise Smith’s action versus Stanley Ceasar, Jr. (doing business as “Ceasar’s Dump Truck Services”), Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company.
Perry authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“On Nov. 6, 2018, Mr. Smith, while in the course and scope of his employment, was driving a 2002 Freightliner tanker truck owned by his employer, Wastewater Specialties, when a collision occurred between his vehicle and a dump truck being driven by Mr. Ceasar. Plaintiffs filed suit against Mr. Ceasar (doing business as “Ceasar’s Dump Truck Services”), and their liability insurer, Clear Blue, seeking damages for Mr. Smith’s personal injuries and Mrs. Smith’s loss of consortium. On March 8, 2021, plaintiffs added Indian Harbor, an excess insurer to Mr. Smith’s employer, Wastewater, as an additional defendant through a supplemental and amending petition. Indian Harbor filed its answer and affirmative defenses, admitting that it issued Policy Number US00085155L118A, an excess policy, to Wastewater, which provided commercial liability coverage subject to certain terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions for the period of June 30, 2018 to June 30, 2019. Indian Harbor further claimed its policy contained an uninsured/underinsured motorist rejection form which eliminated UM coverage under the policy issued to Wastewater,” Perry said.
“In February 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment arguing certain ambiguities in the above-mentioned UM rejection form invalidated Wastewater’s purported rejection of UM coverage. Indian Harbor also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against it on the basis that its excess commercial liability policy did not provide UM coverage because Wastewater had validly rejected such coverage on its UM rejection form. Following a hearing on the parties’ cross motions, the trial court orally ruled that the UM coverage form submitted by Indian Harbor which purportedly reflected Wastewater’s rejection of UM coverage on behalf of Wastewater was invalid. Indian Harbor subsequently sought supervisory review from this court, which was denied. The matter was tried before a jury from Oct. 11 through Oct. 17, 2022. Plaintiffs presented evidence contending that, as a result of the accident, Mr. Smith suffered physical injuries requiring three separate operations, as well as a traumatic brain injury which affects his mental capabilities.”
At the conclusion of trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that Mr. Ceasar was 100% at fault for causing the accident and awarding a total of $5,107,609.23 in damages to the plaintiffs. Damages to Mr. Smith were awarded in the following amounts:
Past Medical Expenses: $360,459.23
Future Medical Expenses: $470,250
Past Physical Pain and Suffering: $300,000
Future Physical Pain and Suffering: $500,000
Past Mental Pain and Suffering: $675,000
Future Mental Pain and Suffering: $700,000
Past Loss of Enjoyment of Life: $500,000
Future Loss of Enjoyment of Life: $500,000
Scarring and Disfigurement: $0
Past Lost Earnings/Earning Capacity: $285,346
Future Lost Earnings/Earning Capacity: $341,554
Mrs. Smith was also awarded $475,000 for loss of consortium.
“The trial court entered a judgment in conformity with the jury’s verdict on Nov. 3, 2022. Defendants timely filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and/or motion for new trial and/or remittitur on Dec. 13, 2022. Therein, defendants challenged the jury’s awards for Mr. Smith’s general damages, future medical expenses and future lost earnings/earning capacity, as well as for Mrs. Smith’s loss of consortium. The trial court denied the JNOV but granted, in part, the motion for new trial and/or remittitur as to Mrs. Smith’s loss of consortium claim only, reducing her damages from $475,000 to $100,000. A judgment to this effect was issued on March 10, 2023,” Perry stated.
“Defendants then perfected suspensive appeals reiterating their challenges to the jury’s awards for Mr. Smith’s general damages, future medical expenses and future lost earnings/earning capacity. Additionally, Indian Harbor contends the trial court erred when it granted a summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of Wastewater’s rejection of UM coverage, as well as the trial court’s ruling granting plaintiffs’ motion in limine which resulted in limiting testimony from defendants’ expert in neurosurgery, Dr. Thomas Bertuccini. Plaintiffs answered defendants’ appeals. Therein, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred when it reduced Mrs. Smith’s award for loss of consortium.”
While the defendants assert the amount awarded in general damages to Mr. Smith is excessive, the plaintiffs countered that the damages awarded by the jury are supported by the law and the evidence.
Mr. Smith was awarded $470,250 for future medical expenses and a total of $1.7 million for future general damages – comprised of $500,000 for future physical pain and suffering, $700,000 for future mental pain and suffering and $500,000 for future loss of enjoyment of life.
“In awarding the exact amount calculated by [CPA, Jason] Schellhaas for Mr. Smith’s future medical care, we find the jury clearly accepted the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts concerning his need for future medical care or rejected defendants’ contention that Mr. Smith’s age determined the likelihood, or unlikelihood, that he would undergo future surgeries. After reviewing the record in its entirety, we do not find it was manifestly erroneous for the jury to conclude plaintiffs proved an entitlement to future medical care and an entitlement to expenses for such. Thus, we find no merit to defendants’ first assignment of error,” Perry said.
“Our review of the evidence revealed that Drs. [Lon] Baronne and [Darren] Strother both testified they would defer to the vocational rehabilitation counselor who worked with Mr. Smith, i.e., Ms. [Joyce] Beckwith, as to what types of work, if any, Mr. Smith may or may not be able to do given his current condition. Ms. Beckwith testified there was no job Mr. Smith could perform due to his physical and mental limitations. Although the jury was presented with conflicting evidence on this issue of Mr. Smith’s future lost wages/earning capacity, there was a reasonable basis for the jury’s award. This award was not manifestly erroneous. Thus, we find no merit to defendants’ second assignment of error.”
Though the defendants also found fault with the jury’s award of $3,175,000 in past and future general damages to Mr. Smith, urging such an award is excessive and should be reduced – the appeals court likewise disagreed.
“In this case, the jury heard plaintiffs testify that the accident completely changed Mr. Smith’s life. He suffered physical injuries, which required three major surgeries, and a brain injury, which affected his cognitive skills. Whereas Mr. Smith was healthy, active, and content, this accident has left him significantly inactive, frequently in pain, depressed and anxious,” Perry stated.
“Considering the evidence before us, the general damage awards in similar cases, and the totality of the circumstances in this case, particularly Mr. Smith’s physical and mental injuries, as well as the degree in which these injuries have affected his life, we cannot say the jury abused its discretion in awarding $3,175,000 in past and future general damages to Mr. Smith. Defendants’ third assignment of error is meritless.”
The appeals court further reversed the granting of a new trial and reduction of the loss of consortium to Mrs. Smith, and reinstated the original jury verdict amount on that charge to $475,000.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, State of Louisiana case 23-689
Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish case 2019-4470-D
From the Louisiana Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com