NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a07 31n. 06 No. 11 -520 5 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL S PURLING, Plaint if f -Appe llant,

v

. ALL ST AT E INDEMNIT Y COMPANY , Def end ant -Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE EAS T ERN DIST RICT OF T ENNESSE E

Bef ore: DAUGHTRE Y and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY , Di strict Judge. *

PER CURIAM. Follow ing a jury v erdict in his f avor and against def end ant Allstate Ind em nity Com pan y , plaint if f Michael Spu rling app eals the district court’s judgme nt, cla im in g tha t the court shou ld have gr ant ed his mo tion f or a new trial, in w hich he challen ged th e jury’s dete rmina tion of da ma ges. W e a f

f irm.

In Janu ary 200 9, a f ire occurred at a dwelli ng insured in Spu rling ’s nam e. He f iled

a claim f or the loss w ith Allstate

. Af ter an investig ation , the insuran ce com pan y den ied the claim. Sp urling then brou ght suit, alleging se v eral types of dam ages: b reach of con tract dam ages f or the policy limits; statu tory dam ages f or bad f aith den ial of coverage; the cost of ma terials and labo r used to se al of f the dwelling af ter th e f ire; an d p unitive da ma ges.

T h e H o n

. J a c k Z o u h a r y , U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f O h i o , s i t t i n g b y * d e s i g n a t i o n

.No. 11-5205

Spurling v. Allstat e Inde mnity Company In his compla int, he sought $75 ,09 0 in com pen sato ry dama ges and $10 0,0 00 in pun itiv e dam ages. Allstate raised tw o def ense s, alleging tha t Spu rling ( or someo ne acting on his beh alf ) inten tiona lly set the f ire and tha t Spu rling ma de ma terial misrep resen tatio ns during the investigation. Eithe r def ense , if proven, w ould ha v e voided the po licy

.
T he jury returne d a v erdict in f avor of Spu rling , specif ically f inding tha t Allstate had f ailed to prove the def ense s of arson and misreprese nta tion. How ever, the jury awarded

o n ly $1, 148 .50 as the reaso nab le v alue of Spu rling ’s loss, a low ball calculat ion in h is estim ation

. Spu rling mo v ed f or a new trial on the issue of dam ages, arguing tha t the jury ’s award w as a gainst th e weig ht o f the evidence . T he district cou rt de nied the m otion , an d Spu rling f iled th is time ly ap pea l.

W e rev iew a district court’s den ial of a mo tion f or a new trial und er an abu se-of

discretion stan dard

. See , e.g

. , Nolan v. Mem phis City Sch. , 589 F.3d 257 , 264 (6th Cir. 200 9). “Rev ersal is only w arrante d if the [c]ou rt has a ‘def inite and f irm conviction tha t the trial court c o m m it t e d a clear error in judgme nt.’” Id. (q uot ing Barne s v. Ow ens-Cornin g Fiberglas Corp. , 20 1 F.3 d 8 15, 82 0 (6t h Cir. 20 00)).

Pursua nt to Fede ral Rule of App ellate Proced ure 10(b )(2), “[i]f the app ellant inten ds to urge on app eal tha t a f inding or conclu sion is unsu ppo rted by the evidence or is cont rary to the evidence, the app ellant mu st include in t he record a transcript of all evidence relevant to tha t f inding or conclu sion.” In this case, Spu rling decline d to include a transcript of the tri al proceed ings in the record on app eal. Beca use the suf f iciency of

the ev iden ce - 2 -No. 11-5205

Spurling v. Allstat e Inde mnity Company to supp ort a jury ’s decision cann ot be question ed on app eal in the abse nce of a transcript, Spu rling ’s f ailure to provide a transcript bars rev iew of his claim. See id. ; see also Haw ley v. City of Clevelan d , 24 F.3d 81 4, 8 20– 21 (6th Cir. 199 4).
Spu rling neverthe less argues on app eal tha t a transcript is unn ecessa ry beca use the dispa rity bet w een the jury ’s award and his averred dam ages w as “so gr eat as to shock the conscie nce. ” How ever, this f ormu lation is not t h e c o rr e ct stan dard f or overturning a jury award of dam ages. Inste ad, “a new trial f or inad equate dam ages is app ropriate only

w here the evidence indicat es tha t the jury awarde d dam ages in an am oun t subst ant ially les s th an un q ue s ti on ab l y prov ed by th e pl ai nt i ff’s un c on tradicte d and und ispute d evidence. ” Bell v. John son , 404 F.3d 997 , 100 3 (6th Cir. 200 5). W ithou t a transcript, it is imp ossible f or us to co ndu ct a m ean ingfu l rev iew of the evidence of

f ered by the partie s at trial up on

w hich t he jury

ba sed its award of

da ma ges. See Haw

ley , 24 F.3d at 821

.
Unde r Rule 10(b ), it is the app ellant ’s dut y to o rd e r t h e transcript w hen it is

nece ssary f or rev iew of the issues he or she inten ds to raise on app eal. Giv en Spu rling ’s f ailure t o p rov ide a tran script of the j urytr ial i n this case, th e e v iden ce relied up on by the jury to supp ort its v erdict, as w ell as th e d is t ri c t court’s reaso ns f or den y ing Spu rling ’s

mo tion f or a new trial, cann ot be challen ged o n app eal. See Fed. R. App

. P. 10(b )(2); Haw ley , 24 F.3d at 821 -22. Accordin gly , w e uph old the district court’s den ial of the mo tion f or a new trial and AFFIRM the district co urt’s jud gmen t.

- 3 -