why not? how long did it take for state farm to admit that it needed to cover? not! because it had to make the court solve that issue. now the court wants to limit the amount of damage? i am sorry, did it not go to the jury for deliberation, if so, they found that it was negligent and needed to put a stop on their actions. that is what punitive damages are for.
“We REVERSE the judgment of the district court entering JMOL in favor of the Broussards. We REVERSE and VACATE the jury’s award of punitive damages. We AFFIRM the district court’s admission of testimony from the Broussards’ expert witness. We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of State Farm’s motion to change venue. We REMAND the case for a new trial.”
The 5th circuit court found that State Farm had an arguable basis for denying the Broussards’ claim, and the district court never should have submitted the punitive damages question to the jury.
decided to settle, because it would have cost them more money — where the attorneys would get more. it ashame that for some reason we have good cases going to court and being resolved appropriately and then we have these frivilous suits in court that bog them up. this was a good case, too bad it did not end up correctly – instead an out-of-court settlement.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
why not? how long did it take for state farm to admit that it needed to cover? not! because it had to make the court solve that issue. now the court wants to limit the amount of damage? i am sorry, did it not go to the jury for deliberation, if so, they found that it was negligent and needed to put a stop on their actions. that is what punitive damages are for.
Have you heard of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals? Maybe you should read their opinion on State Farm’s appeal of the Broussard case.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60443-CV0.wpd.pdf
Here is the court’s conclusion:
“We REVERSE the judgment of the district court entering JMOL in favor of the Broussards. We REVERSE and VACATE the jury’s award of punitive damages. We AFFIRM the district court’s admission of testimony from the Broussards’ expert witness. We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of State Farm’s motion to change venue. We REMAND the case for a new trial.”
The 5th circuit court found that State Farm had an arguable basis for denying the Broussards’ claim, and the district court never should have submitted the punitive damages question to the jury.
The Broussards decided to settle. Imagine that!
decided to settle, because it would have cost them more money — where the attorneys would get more. it ashame that for some reason we have good cases going to court and being resolved appropriately and then we have these frivilous suits in court that bog them up. this was a good case, too bad it did not end up correctly – instead an out-of-court settlement.