# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 17 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Pat ric ia Jac ks on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

All st at e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 15

Fil ed : M ay

7, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a fir e of in cen di ary or ig in d e s t r o yed he r ho us e, Pat ric ia Ja ck so n su ed

All st at e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny fo r de nyin g he r cl ai m on a ho m eo wne r's in su ran ce

po li cy

. A ll st at e as se rte d th at Ja ck so n's co ve rag e was vo id be cau se sh e bu rn ed th e

ho us e or cau se d it to be bu rn ed an d be cau se sh e m ad e m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on sreg ard in g h ow t he fir e was st art ed . The d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d Alls ta te 's m ot io n for 1

pa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t an d de ni ed Ja ck so n's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The

pa rti es th en pr oc eed ed to tri al on Ja ck so n's br each of co nt ract cl ai m , an d th e jury

fo un d in fav or of All st at e. On ap pe al

, Ja ck so n as se rts th at th e jury's ve rd ic t was no t

su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Ja ck so n al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l

of he r rem ai ni ng cl ai m s, it s im po si ti on of a on e-d ay ti m e li m it fo r Ja ck so n to pr es en t

he r cas e, nu m ero us ev id en ti ary an d di sc ov ery r u l i n g s , an d th e co ur t's de ni al of

Ja ck so n's req ue st f

or a st at ut or y pe na lt y an d at to rn ey 's fees rel at ed to All st at e's

un ti m el y att em pt to pa y he r m or tg ag e. W e aff

irm.

I. BACKGRO UND

So m et im e be twee n 6: 00 a.m

. a n d 6: 40 a.m

. on th e m or ni ng of Feb ru ary 22

, 20 12 , a fir e se ve rel y da m ag ed Ja ck so n's ho us e. Ja ck so n t es ti fie d t ha t s he sp en t th e

ni gh t of Feb ru ary 21 at he r m ot he r's ho us e in Pi ne Bl uf f, Ark a n s as , an d th e tri al

reco rd in di cat es th at Ja ck so n was at wor k du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d in whi ch th e fir e

be ga n. The Lit tl e Ro ck Fi re Dep art m en t was c a l le d to Ja ck so n's res id en ce an d

su cces sf ul ly pu t ou t th e fir e. Ry an Bak er, an in ve st ig at or fo r th e Lit tl e Ro ck Fi re Dep art m en t's Fi re Mar sh al 's Div is io n, was ta sk ed wit h de te rm in in g th e cau se of th e

fir e

. Bak er ul ti m at el y cl as si fie d th e fir e as an in cen di ary fir e, m ean in g th at it was

st art ed by hu m an in te rv en ti on

. Bak er reac he d th is co nc lu si on aft er he d e te ct ed

acce le ran ts (i.e

., ga so li ne ) in m ul ti pl e lo cat io ns in th e ho us e an d di sc ov ered th at th e

fir e's po in ts of or ig in were in co ns i s t e n t wit h an y acci de nt al cau se s. At tri al

, th e

pa rti es ag reed th at th e fir e was a pr od uc t of ars on , an d th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury to t hi s ef

fect

.

The Hon or ab le Bi ll y Ro y W il so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Bak er te st ifi ed th at he in it ia ll y b e l ie ve d th at Ja ck so n m ig ht ha ve be en th e

vi ct im of a ha te cri m e, pr im ari ly be cau se he di sc ov ered raci al ly de ro ga ti ve gr affi ti in

he r ga rag e an d ba se m en t. Howev er, Bak er te st ifi ed th at as hi s in ve st ig at io n un fo ld ed

, Ja ck so n's st at us qu ic kl y ch an ge d fro m th at of vi ct im to th at of su sp ect

. Bak er

te st ifi ed th at th ere were no si gn s of fo rced en try in to Ja ck so n's ho us e, whi ch in di cat ed

th at who ev er st art ed th e fir e ha d a ke y

. Bak er al so te st ifi ed th at Ja ck so n's ho us e was

la rg el y de vo id of pe rs on al it em s, fo od

, or fu rn it ur e. Bak er in te rv ie wed Ja ck so n, an d

he cl ai m s sh e to ld hi m th at sh e was th e on ly pe rs on wit h acce ss to th e ho us e, th at sh e

di d no t be li ev e an y on e ha d an y m ot iv e to ha rm he r, an d th at sh e was no t m is si ng an y

it em s of pr op ert y

. Bak er a l s o t es ti fie d th at Ja ck so n to ld hi m th at sh e was at wor k

whe n th e fir e st art ed

. B a k e r t h eref or e wro te a se arch warra nt fo r he r cel l ph on e

r eco rd s to ve rif

y he r whe reab ou ts

. The se reco rd s in di cat ed th at

, al th ou gh J a c k s o n

was pr ob a b l y at wor k whe n th e fir e st art ed

, Alex an de r Hen so n, who is Ja ck so n's

co wor ke r, at te m

pt ed to cal l Ja ck so n th ree ti m es be twee n 5: 49 a.m

. an d 6: 12 a.m

. on

th e m or ni ng of th e fir e. Bak er su bs eq ue nt ly in te rv ie wed Hen so n, who de ni ed th at he

tri ed to cal l Ja ck so n. Ja ck so n al so to ld Bak er th at sh e ne ve r rece iv ed an y ph on e cal ls

fro m H enso n. Howev er, Bak er te st ifi ed th at th e cel l ph on e reco rd s cl earl y es ta bl is he d

th at Hen so n's ph on e cal le d Ja ck so n's ph on e, an d he th eref or e co nc lu de d th at Hen so n

a n d J a c k s o n were lying ab ou t th ei r co nt act on th e m or ni ng of th e fir e. Bak e r

ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th a t

, b a s e d up on th e in cen di ary or ig in of th e fir e, th e la ck of

ev id en ce of fo rced en try or bu rg la ry , th e de art h of it em s in th e ho us e, an d Ja ck so n's

an d Hen so n's al le ge d di sh on es ty reg ard in g th ei r co n t a c t

, t ha t Hen so n m ay ha ve

bu r n e d J a c k so n's ho m e at he r req ue st

. Howev er, no cri m in al ch arg es were fil ed

ag ai ns t Hen so n o r Ja ck so n.

W il bu r Jo rd an , a m em

be r of All st at e's sp eci al in ve st ig at iv e un it

, te st ifi ed th at

he co nd uc te d an in de pe nd en t in ve st ig at io n of th e ev en ts su rro un di ng th e fir e an d

co n c l u d e d th at Hen so n ha d bu rn ed Ja ck so n's ho m e. All st at e's in ve st ig at or s al so

di sc ov ered th at Ja ck so n was su bjec t to a 20 06 di vo rce de cree th at or de red he r to se ll

he r ho us e, th at sh e tri ed to se ll th e ho us e fo r se ve ral y ears , an d th at sh e to ok th e ho us e

-3

-of

f th e m ark et aft er he r effo r t s t o s el l were un su cces sf ul

. All st at e th us de ni ed

Ja ck so n's in su ran c e cl ai m ba se d on two pr ov is io ns in he r po li cy , on e of whi ch

ex cl ud ed co ve rag e fo r lo ss es cau se d by "i nt en ti on al or cri m in al act s of or at th e

di rect io n of an y in su red pe rs on ," (In te nt io na l Acts Exc lu si on ) an d on e th at ex cl ud ed

co ve rag e fo r an y lo ss "i n whi ch an y in su red pe rs on ha s co nc eal ed or m is rep res en te d

an y m at eri al fact " (Ma te ria l Mi sr e pr es en ta ti on s Exc lu si on ). Fo ll owi ng th e de ni al

, Ja ck so n fil ed su it ag ai ns t All st at e, as se rti ng , in te r al ia

, cl ai m s fo r br each of co nt ract

,

un jus t en ri c h men t, ba d fai th

, an d pr om is so ry an d eq ui ta bl e es to pp el

. All st at e

co un te red th at Ja ck so n's po li cy was vo id ba se d on th e In te nt io na l Acts an d Mat eri al

Mi sr ep res en ta ti on s ex cl us io ns

.

Sh or tl y aft er Jack so n fil ed su it

, All st at e su bm it te d a pr iv il eg e lo g th at so ug ht

to pr ot ect fro m di sc lo su re nu m ero us do cu m en ts rel at ed to Ja ck so n's po li cy cl ai m th at

co nt ai ne d at to rn ey -cl ie nt co m m un ic at io ns an d wor k pr od uc t. Ja ck so n fil ed a m ot io n

to co m pe l pr od uc ti on of th es e do cu m en ts

, an d All st at e res is te d th e m ot io n. Ja ck so n

req ue st ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t rev ie w th e do cu m en ts in cam era, an d All st at e di d no t

ob ject to th is req ue st . After p erfo rm in g a n i n c am era r ev ie w, th e d is tri ct co ur t hel d

th e d oc um en ts were n ot di sc ov erab le an d d en ie d J ack so n's m ot io n.

Afte r th e pa rti es co m

pl et ed su bs ta n t i a l di sc ov ery, All st at e fil ed a m ot io n fo r

pa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t wit h res pe ct to al l of Ja ck so n's cl ai m s ex cep t fo r th e br each

of c on tra ct cl ai m

. Ja ck so n res is te d th is m ot io n an d fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on All st at e's affi rm at iv e de fen se s. The d i s t r i ct co ur t de ni ed Ja ck so n's

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t aft er co nc lu di ng th ere were m at eri al qu es ti on s of fact

reg ard in g whe th er s h e w a s i nv ol ve d in bu rn in g he r ho us e an d whe th er sh e m ad e

m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on s. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d All st at e's m ot io n fo r

pa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e gr ou nd s th at Ja ck so n's u n jus t en ric hm en t an d

es to pp el cl ai m s were pr ecl ud ed un de r Ark an sa s la w a nd th at Jac ks on ha d fai le d to

pr od uc e su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t ha t Al ls ta te de ni ed he r cl ai m in ba d fa it h.

-4

-Befo re t ria l, the pa rti es fil ed nu m ero us m ot io ns in li m in e. Ja ck so n m ov ed to

ex cl ud e al l ev id en ce rel at ed to Hen so n's cel l ph on e reco rd s; th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

th is m ot io n. Ja ck so n m ov ed to e x c lu de as in he ren tl y un rel ia bl e an y ev id en ce th at

in vo lv ed th e us e of hi st or ic al cel l ph on e da ta to pl ace in di vi du al s at cert ai n lo cat io ns

. Ja ck so n a ls o at te m

pt ed to ex cl ud e All st at e's ex pe rt, Kev in Lev y , who was s la te d t o

te st ify o n t h e su bjec t of cel l ph on e reco rd s, ba se d on an un ti m el y di sc lo se d ex pe rt

rep or t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed bo th mo t i o n s. All st at e m ov ed to ex cl ud e on e of

Ja ck so n's ex pe rts

, Dav id Van Pu ffel en , wh o was sc he du le d to te st ify t ha t All st at e's

in ve st ig at io n of th e fir e was in ad eq ua te be cau se All st a t e f a i l e d to es ta bl is h th at

Ja ck so n ha d a m ot iv e to cau se th e fir e an d be cau se All st at e's i n v es ti ga to r di d no t

su ffi ci en tl y

rul e o ut ot he r po ss ib le su sp ect s. Th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t i m m ed ia te ly

ru le on All st at e's m ot io n bu t di d in di cat e th at it was "h ig hl y du bi ou s" o f t h e

ad m is si bi li ty of Van Pu ffel en 's te st im on y

. Ja ck so n fil ed a m otion fo r reco ns id erat io n,

whi ch t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t de ni ed

. Afte r Ja ck so n ag ai n rai se d th e is su e at a pr et ria l

co nf eren ce, t he di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at Van Pu ffel en 's te st im on y was in ad m is si bl e.

App ro xi m at el y on e m on th be fo re tri a l was sc he du le d to be gi n, Ja ck so n

su bm it te d a pr et ria l di sc lo su r e s h e et whi ch st at ed th at Ja ck so n pl an ne d to cal l

ap pr ox im at el y fif

ty wit ne ss es an d ne ed ed aro un d th irt y ho ur s to ex am in e th em

. The

n ig ht be fo re tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed th e pa rti es th at

, be cau se th e cas e ha d

be en red uc ed to a si m

pl e co nt ract di sp ut e, th e co ur t wou ld pe rm it th e pa rti es on e da y

each to pr es en t th ei r cas e. Ja ck so n ob jecte d to th e on e-d ay ti m e li m it

, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d a co nt in ua nc e so th at Ja ck so n co ul d su bm it a pr of fer of wit ne ss es

. Ja ck so n su bm it te d a pr of

fer of twen ty-fou r wit ne ss es , an d the co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly he ld

a h eari ng to pe rm it Jac ks on to ex pl ai n wh y sh e was pr ejud ic ed by the on e-d ay ti m e

li m it

. At th e he ari ng , Ja ck so n's co un se l ack no wled ge d th at se ve ral of th e wit ne ss es

wou ld pr ov id e cu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce an d th erefor e co ul d be ex cl ud ed

. The pa rti es al so

d i s c u s s e d whe th er se ve ral wit ne ss es who were sc he du le d to te st ify so le ly ab ou t

Ja ck so n's rel ig io us pr oc li vi ti es an d he r g o o d mo ral ch arac te r m ig ht al so ne ed to be

ex cl ud ed un de r Ru le s 40 3, 40 4, an d 61 0 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Howev er,

-5

-th e di st ric t co ur t br ie fly no te d th e po ss ib il it y th at Ja ck so n m ig ht be ab le to pr of fer

ch ara c t e r w it ne ss es un de r Ru le 60 8 if he r ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s was at ta ck ed

. The di st ric t co ur t ul ti m at el y ex cl ud ed twel ve of Ja ck so n's pr of fere d wit ne ss es on th e

gr ou nd s t h a t th ei r te st im on y wou ld be cu m ul at iv e or irr el ev an t. The co ur t al so

ex cl ud ed Ja ck so n's f

i v e c h a ract er wit ne ss es un de r Ru le s 40 3, 40 4, an d 61 0. The

di st ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly ov er r ul ed Ja ck so n's ob jecti on to th e ti m e li m it bu t

in di cat ed th at it wou ld be op en to rev is it in g it s ru li ng s on Ja ck so n's wit ne ss es an d th e

ti m e li m it de pe nd in g o n h ow ci rcu m st an ces de ve lo pe d a t t ria l.

App ro xi m at el y on e week aft er the di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed Ja ck so n's pr of fere d

wit ne ss es , Ja ck so n se rv ed All st at e wit h twen ty -t hr ee re que sts fo r ad

m iss ion

. Ro ug hl y

on e-h al f of th es e req ue st s rel at ed to is su es th at were m at eri al ly di sp ut ed

, su ch as

whe th er Hen so n bu rn ed Ja ck so n's ho us e at he r req ue st

. All st at e fil ed a m ot io n fo r a

pr ot ect i v e or de r, co m

pl ai ni ng th at th e pu rp os e of Ja ck so n's req ue st s fo r ad m is si on

was to ha ras s and an no y All st at e an d th at th e req ue st s were ba rred by th e di sc ov ery

d e a d l i n e. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d All st at e's m ot io n an d de ni ed Ja ck so n' s

su bs eq ue nt m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.

The pa rti es pr oc eed ed to tri al on Feb r u ary 25

, 20 14

. As no te d ab ov e, Bak er

pr ov id ed ex te ns iv e te st im on y reg ard in g hi s in ve st ig at io n of th e fir e, an d Ja c k so n's

co un se l th or ou gh ly cro ss -ex am in ed Bak er reg ard in g t h e i nv es ti ga ti ve m et ho ds he

em pl oyed, hi s fin di ng s, an d th e po ss ib il it y th at Ja ck so n's ex -h us ba nd or va nd al s m ay

ha ve cau se d th e fir e. Ja ck so n te st ifi ed du rin g All st at e's cas e-i n- ch ie f, as well as he r

own , an d sh e ad m it te d th at he r m or tg ag e pa y m en t co ns um ed ne arl y 8 0 % of he r

m on th ly i nc om e, th at sh e was th e on ly p ers on wit h a ke y to he r ho us e, an d th at sh e

was un aware of an y on e who wou ld wan t to ha rm he r

. J a c k s o n al so te st ifi ed th at

se ve ral it em s were st ol en fro m h e r h ou se , in cl ud in g a la rg e sc reen te le vi si on an d a

fa mily Bi bl e. Jo rd an te st ifi ed an d was cro ss -ex am in ed reg ard in g th e res ul ts of

All st at e's in ve st ig at io n o f th e fi re an d i ts de ci si on to de ny Jack so n's cla im

.

-6

-Lev y pr ov id ed ex pe rt te st im on y reg ard in g Ja ck so n's an d Hen so n's cel l ph on e

reco rd s. Lev y te st ifi ed th at th es e reco rd s es ta bl is he d th at Hen so n's ph on e at te m pt ed

to co nn ect wit h Ja ck so n's ph on e at le as t th ree ti m es be twee n 5: 49 a.m

. an d 6: 12 a.m

.

on th e m or ni ng of th e fir e. Lev y al so te s t i f i e d th at du rin g each of th es e cal ls

, Hen so n's cel l ph on e co nn ect ed to cel l to wers lo cat ed cl os e to Ja ck so n's ho us e. Lev y

pr ov id ed e x t e n s i v e te st im on y reg ard in g ho w an d why cel l ph on e cal ls typic al ly

co nn ect to th e to wer lo cat ed cl os es t to th e ph on e, an d he di sc us se d a fie ld st ud y th at

he pe rfo rm ed to de te rm in e th e ap pr ox im at e co ve rag e area of th e to wers th at carr ie d

th e cal ls fro m Hen so n's ph on e on th e m or ni ng of th e fir e. Bas ed on th e res ul ts of th is

fie ld st ud y , Lev y co nc lu de d th at Hen so n's p h o n e was pr ob ab ly lo cat ed so m ewh ere

ne ar Ja ck so n's ho m e du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d in whi ch th e fir e st art ed

. In res po ns e to

Lev y 's te st im on y , Ja ck so n in tro du ced de po si ti on te st im on y fro m he r own cel lu la r

te ch no lo gy ex pe rt, Ru ss el l Po pe

. Lik e Lev y , P o pe te st ifi ed th at Hen so n's ph on e

at te m pt ed to co nn ect wit h Ja ck so n's ph on e at le as t th ree ti m es be fo re 6: 12 a.m

. on th e

m or ni ng of th e fir e an d th at di rect io na l da ta fr o m t h e cel l to wer in di cat ed th at th e 2

cal ls or ig in at ed in th e Cam m ack Vil la ge , Ark an sa s, area , whi ch is lo c a t e d s e v eral

m il es fro m

Jac ks on 's ho us e. Po pe fu rth er te st ifi ed th at cel l t owe rs lo cat ed in urb an

area s typic al ly can on ly co nn ect wit h cel l ph on es lo cat ed wit hi n a on e-t o- two m il e

rad iu s o f th e to wer.

Alt ho ug h Po pe 's te st im on y was m os tl y co ns is te nt wit h Lev y 's te st im on y , A l l s ta te br ie fly re-c al le d Bak er in or de r to es ta bl is h th e ti m e it ta ke s to dr iv e fro m

Cam m ack Vil la ge to Ja ck so n's ho us e. Bak er te st ifi ed th at

, de pe nd in g on tra ffi c

co nd it io ns , he co ul d dr iv e fro m Cam m ack Vil la ge to Ja ck so n's ho us e in te n m in ut es

or le ss

. Ja ck so n's co un se l at te m pt ed to im

pe ach Bak er's te st im on y by in tro du ci ng a

pr in to ut fro m Goo gl e Map s th at al le ge dl y es ti m a t e d t h e dr iv e ti m e to be twen ty

Des pi te th e fact th at Ja ck so n's ex pe rt te st ifi ed th at Hen so n's an d Ja ck so n's cel l 2 ph on es co nn e c t e d at le as t th ree ti m es on th e m or ni ng of th e fir e, bo th Hen so n an d

Ja ck so n m ai nt ai ne d t ha t t he se cal ls ne ve r oc cu rred

.
-7

-m in ut es

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e p rin to ut aft er All st at e's co un se l

m ad e a h ears ay

ob jecti on

.

Pri or to th e cl os e of All st at e's cas e-i n- ch ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld a jury

in st ru ct io ns co nf

eren ce wit h th e pa rti es to di sc us s th ei r pr opos ed j ur y in st ru ct io ns an d

to so li ci t th ei r feed ba ck reg ard in g th e fin al in st ru ct io ns th e co ur t pl an ne d to gi ve

. At

th is co nf eren ce, th e co ur t ex pl ic it ly di sc us se d Ju ry In st ru ct io n No. 8

, w hi ch st at ed
"(1 ) All st at e co nt en ds th at Ms

. Ja ck so n ei th er bu rn ed th e in su red pr op ert y or cau se d

th e pr op ert y to be bu rn ed [an d] (2 ) All st at e co nt en ds th at Ms

. Ja ck so n in te nt io na ll y

co nc eal ed or m is rep res en te d m at eri al fact s

. . . rel at in g to th e in ve st ig at io n of th e

fir e." The on ly ob

jecti on Ja ck so n m ad e to th is in st ru ct io n was th at it sh ou ld st at e th at

A l l s t a te ha d th e bu rd en of pr ov in g bo th de fen se s. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th i s

ob jecti on

.

At th e cl os e of All st at e's cas e-i n- ch ie f, Ja ck so n m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r

of la w (J AML); th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is m ot io n. Ja ck so n ren ew e d he r m ot io n

be fo re th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is m ot io n as

well

. The di st ric t co ur t pr ov id ed Ju ry In st ru ct io n N o . 8 an d ga ve th e jury a ve rd ic t

fo rm th at in di cat ed th e jury sh ou ld fin d fo r All st at e i f i t co nc lu de d "b y th e gr eat er weig ht of th e ev id en ce th at Pat ric ia Ja ck so n, or so m eo ne on he r be ha lf, ei th er bu rn ed

he r ho m e or cau se d it to bu rn ." Ja ck so n di d no t fu rth er ob ject to Ju ry In st ru ct io n No.

8 or th e ve rd ic t fo rm

. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of All st at e on th e ba si s of

All st at e's in te nt io na l act s de fe n se

. The reco rd be fo re us co nt ai ns no ev id en ce th at

Ja ck so n fil ed a ren ewed m ot io n for J AML aft er the fin al en try of jud gm en t in fav or

of All st at e.

-8

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Summ ar y J udg m ent

Ja ck so n as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by gr an ti ng All st at e's m ot io n fo r pa rti al

su m m ary jud gm en t on he r cl ai m s fo r un jus t en ric hm en t, es to pp el

, a n d ba d fai th

. Ja ck so n al so co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in he r

fav or on All st at e's de fen se th at Ja ck so n pe rs on al ly b u r n e d h e r ho m e. W it h res pe ct

to Ja ck so n's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, we typic al ly "wi ll n o t r e v i e w a di st ric t

co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t afte r a tri al on th e m eri ts ," and we

de cl in e to do so he re. Keu p v. Hop ki ns , 59 6 F.3 d 89 9, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. W e do

, ho wev er, rev ie w de n o v o t h e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of pa rti al

su m m ary jud gm en t in fav o r o f All st at e, "v ie win g th e ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of [J ack so n]." Ro se v. Fl ai rty, 77 2 F.3 d 55 2, 55 4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 14 ).

Ja ck so n's un

jus t en r i c h men t an d es to pp el cl ai m s are qu as i-c on tra ct ua l in

na tu re. Glen n Mec h., In c. v. S. Ark

. Reg 'l Heal th Ct r., In c., 27 8 S.W .3d 58 3, 58 6
(Ark

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 ). Und er Ark an sa s la w, "t he ex is te nc e of a va li d an d en fo rcea bl e

writ te n c on tra ct go ve rn in g a pa rti cu la r su bjec t m at te r or di na ril y pr ecl ud es reco ve ry

in qu as i-c on tra c t f

o r e v en ts ari si ng ou t of th e sa m e su bjec t m at te r." Serv ewel l

Pl um bi ng , LLC v. Su m

m it Co nt ract or s, In c., 21 0 S.W .3d 10 1, 11 2 (Ark

. 20 05 )
(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er, whe n an en fo rcea bl e writ te n "co nt ract do es no t fu ll y

ad dr es s a su bjec t, a co ur t of eq ui t y may i mp o s e a rem ed y to fu rth er th e en ds of
jus ti ce." QHG of Sp rin gd al e, In c. v. Arch er, 37 3 S.W .3d 31 8

, 3 2 4 ( A r k

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Alt ho ug h Ja ck so n do es no t di sp ut e th at he r in su ran ce po li cy wit h All st at e is an

en fo rcea bl e writ te n co nt ract

, sh e co n t e n d s t he co nt ract do es no t fu ll y ad dr es s th e

su bjec t m at te r in th is cas e. Sp eci fic al ly, Ja ck so n a ss ert s th at sh e pa id he r m or tg ag e

-9

-un ti l Octo be r 20 13

, ov er on e y ear fo ll owi ng th e lo ss , de sp it e th e fact th at All st at e ha d

a du ty u nd er he r in su ran ce po li cy to pa y th e m or tg ag e. Ja ck so n th eref or e co nt en ds

th at

, be cau se th e po li cy is si le nt reg ard in g he r rig h t to reco ve r th os e m or tg ag e

pa y m en ts

, th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y d i s miss ed he r eq ui ta bl e cl ai m s. Howev er,

be cau se Ja ck so n pr es um ab ly ha d an on go in g ob li ga ti on to pa y he r own m or tg ag e, he r

po st -fi re m or tg ag e pa y m en ts were reco ve rab le da m ag es ari si ng fro m All st at e's

al le ge d br each of co nt ract

. See Opt ic al P a r t n e rs , In c. v. Dan g, 38 1 S.W .3d 46

, 55
(Ark

. 20 11 ) ("I n br each -o f- co nt ract cas es , co ns eq ue nt ia l da m ag es are reco ve rab le

whe n th ey were fai rly wi th in th e co nt em pl at i o n of th e pa rti es ."). The di st ric t co ur t

th eref or e co rrec tl y he ld Ja ck so n's po li cy ful ly add res se d t he su bjec t m at te r at is su e.

W e al so ho ld th e di st ric t co ur t di d n ot err in di sm is si ng Ja ck so n's ba d fai th

cl a i m

. Und er Ark an sa s la w, "a cl ai m ba se d on th e to rt of ba d fai th m us t in cl ud e

affi rm at iv e m is co nd uc t by th e in su ran ce co m pa ny, wit ho ut a go od fai th de fen se , an d

. . . th e m is co nd uc t m

us t be di sh on es t, m al ic io us , or op pr es si ve in an at te m pt to av oi d

it s li ab il it y un de r [th e] in su ran ce po li cy ." Aetn a Cas

. an d Su r. Co

. v. Bro ad way Arm s

Co rp ., 6 64 S.W .2d 46 3, 46 5 (Ark . 1 98 4)

. The su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd i n d i c a t es

th at All st at e de ni ed Ja ck so n's cl ai m ba se d up on it s rece ip t of su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at

Ja ck so n in te nt i o n al ly cau se d he r ho us e to be bu rn ed an d m at eri al ly m is rep res en te d

he r ro le in cau si ng th e fi re. In ad di ti on , J ack so n's ex pe rt, Van Pu ffel en , tes ti fie d i n

hi s de po si ti on th at

, aft er rev ie win g th e rel ev an t ev id en ce up on whi ch All st at e rel ie d

in de nyin g Ja ck so n's cl ai m , he co ul d no t sa y whe th er All st at e de ni ed Ja ck so n's cl ai m

in ba d fai th

. The di st ric t co ur t th us co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th e su m m ary jud gm en t 3

Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd

, it is cl ear th at Van Pu ffel en 's ex pe rt 3

te st im on y was rel ev an t on ly to th e is su e o f whe th er Al ls ta te de ni ed Jac ks on 's clai m in ba d fai th

. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d Ja ck so n's ba d

fai th cl ai m , we ho ld th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g Van Pu ffel en 's

te st im on y at tri al

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 70 2( a); se e Sap pi ng to n v. Sk yja c k

, In c., 51 2 F.3 d

44 0, 44 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (n ot in g "[t ]he di st ric t co ur t's ex cl us io n of ex pe rt te st im on y is rev ie wed for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n" ).

-1 0-reco rd was de vo id of ev id en ce in di cat in g th at All st at e's de ni al of Ja ck so n's cl ai m was

"d is ho ne st

, m al ic io us , or op pr es si ve ." Id

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's

di sm is sa l o f Ja ck so n's eq ui ta bl e cl ai m s an d h er b ad fai th cla im

.

B. Dis co ve ry Ruli ng s

Ja c ks on co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g he r m ot io n to co m pe l

pr od uc ti on of th e do cu m en ts co nt ai ne d in All st at e's pr iv il eg e lo g an d by gr an ti ng

All st at e's m ot io n fo r a pr ot ect iv e or de r. "We rev ie w a d i s t r i c t co ur t's di sc ov ery

ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n

. " Harv ey v. Sch oe n, 24 5 F.3 d 71 8, 72 0- 21 (8 th Ci r.

20 01 ). All st at e cl ai m s th at th e do cu m en ts in it s pr iv il eg e lo g co nt ai ne d co nf id en ti al

a t t o rn ey -cl ie nt co m

m un ic at io ns or wor k pr od uc t, an d Ja ck so n se em in gl y do es n o t

di sp ut e t h i s co nt en ti on

. Ja ck so n arg ue s, ho wev er, th at th e do cu m en ts are

di sc ov erab le be cau se th ey co nt ai n th e m en ta l im pr es si on s of th e ag en ts who de ni ed

he r cl ai m

. W e fin d th is arg um en t un pe rs ua si ve

. Ja ck so n do es no t su ffi ci en tl y su pp or t

he r co nt en ti on th at th es e al le ge d "m en t a l im pr es si on s" are di sc ov erab le

, an d ou r

r e v i e w of th e reco rd in di cat es th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y

de cl ari ng th es e do cu m en ts to be pr iv il eg ed

. Ark

. R. Evi d. 50 2( b) ; se e Uni on Cn ty.,

Io wa v. Pi pe r Ja f

f r a y & Co

., 52 5 F.3 d 64 3, 64 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at in a

di ve rs it y cas e "t he de te rm in at io n of whe th er at to rn ey -cl ie nt pr iv il eg e ap pl ie s is

go ve rn ed by st at e la w"); se e Pi tt m a n v

. Fraz er, 12 9 F.3 d 98 3, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )
(h ol di ng o r di na ry wor k pr od uc t m ay be di sc ov ered "o nl y up on a sh owi ng of

su bs ta nt ia l n e e d an d an in ab il it y to se cu re th e su bs ta nt ia l eq ui va le nt of th e it em s

th ro ug h al te rn at e m e a ns wit ho ut un du e ha rd sh ip ") (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Fi na ll y , Ja ck so n ha s p r o v i d ed no ev id en ce th at All st at e waiv ed an ap pl ic ab le

pr iv il eg e wit h res pe ct to an y of th e do cu m en t s

. See Pam id a, In c. v. E.S. Ori gi na ls

, In c., 28 1 F.3 d 72 6, 73 1- 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (d is cu ss in g waiv er o f w or k pr od uc t

pr iv il eg e); Kin ke ad v. Uni on Nat'l Ban k, 90 7 S.W .2d 15 4, 15 8 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 19 95 )
(d is cu ss in g waiv er of at to rn ey -cl ie nt pr iv il eg e). Acco rd in gl y , t he di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g J ack so n's m ot io n t o c om pe l.

-1 1-W e al so can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by su m m ari ly

gr an ti ng All st at e's m ot io n fo r a pr ot ect iv e or de r. Ru le 26 (c)( 1) of th e Fed eral Ru le s

of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e pe rm it s a co ur t, fo r go od cau se , to "i ss ue an or de r to p r o t e c t a

pa rty or pe rs on fro m an no y an ce, em ba rras sm en t, op pr es si on , or un du e bu rd en ." Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 26 (c)( 1)

. Here, on th e ev e of tri al

, Ja ck so n se rv ed All st at e wit h do zen s of

req ue st s to ad m it m at eri al fact s th at Ja ck so n kn ew were in di sp ut e. Alt ho ug h Ja ck so n

as se rts th e r e qu es ts fo r ad m is si on were in te nd ed to "n arro w th e co nt es te d is su es in

th is cas e," th e fri vo lo us na tu re of m an y of th es e req ue st s in di cat es th ey were de si gn ed

to an no y an d bu rd en Al l s t a t e

. A c co rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of

All st at e's m ot io n fo r a p ro te ct iv e o rd er. 4

C. Ev id enti ar y Rul in gs

1. Ti m e Li m it a nd J ac k so n' s Cha ra cter Wi tnes se s

Ja ck so n as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by en te rin g a pr et ria l or de r th at ex cl ud ed

he r ch arac te r wit ne s s e s an d by li m it in g he r ti m e to pr es en t ev id en ce at tri al

. W it h

res pe ct to th e di st ric t co ur t's ex cl us io n of he r wit ne ss es , Ja ck so n con ced es th at

, as a

ge ne ral m at te r, ch arac te r ev id en ce in ci vi l cas e s , i nc lu di ng ev id en ce of rel ig io us

b e l i efs or op in io ns , is in ad m is si bl e. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3, 40 4( a)(1 ) & 61 0. Ja ck so n

co nt en ds , ho wev er, t ha t Al ls ta te att ack ed he r cre di bi li ty as a wit ne ss , and th at Ru le

60 8( a) th e r e f

o re en ti tl ed he r to reb ut th is at ta ck vi a he r own ch arac te r wit ne ss es

. Ru le 60 8( a) pr ov id es th at a wit ne ss 's cred ib il it y m ay be a t t a c k e d or su pp or te d by

op in io n or rep ut at io n te st im on y ab ou t th e wit ne ss 's ch arac te r fo r t r ut hf ul ne ss or

un tru th fu ln es s; ho wev er, "ev id en ce of tru th fu l ch arac te r is ad m is si bl e on ly aft er th e

wit ne ss 's ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s ha s be en a t t a c k e d

. " Fed . R . Ev id . 6 08 (a). "We

W e al so no te th e req ue st s fo r ad m is si on m ay ha ve be en un ti m el y , as th ey were 4

fil ed m on th s aft er th e di sc ov ery de ad li ne ex pi red

. See Free m an v. Ci ty of Detr oi t,
27 4 F.R.D. 61 0, 61 2- 13 (E.D. Mi ch

. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng se ve ral fed eral di st ric t co ur t cas es ho ld in g re qu es ts for ad m is si on are s ub ject t o d is co ve ry

de ad li ne s)

.
-1 2-rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to ad m it or ex cl ud e ev id en ce u n d e r R u le 60 8( a)

fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n." Uni te d St at es v. Je well

, 61 4 F.3 d 91 1, 92 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ).

Ja ck so n fir st arg ue s t h a t All st at e at ta ck ed he r ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s as a

wit ne ss by as se rti ng it s m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on s de fen se

. Ja c k s o n c i te s no cas e

la w in su pp or t of he r co nt en ti on , an d we de cl in e to ho ld th at All st at e's as se rti on of

th is de fen se en ti tl ed Ja ck so n to of fer ch arac te r ev id en ce un de r Ru le 60 8( a). Ja ck so n

al te rn at iv el y arg ue s th at All st at e at ta ck ed he r cred ib il it y whe n Bak er te st ifi ed th at sh e

was di sh on es t with hi m du rin g hi s in ve st ig at io n. Howev er, Jack so n nev er ob jecte d

to Bak er's te st im on y un de r Ru le 60 8( a). In ad di ti on , de sp it e th e di s t r i ct co ur t's

as su ran ces th at it wou ld co ns id er rev is in g it s evi de nt ia ry ru li ng s dep en di ng on ho w

th e tri al pr og res se d, Ja ck so n ne ve r of fer e d a reb ut ta l wit ne ss to co un te r Bak er's

pu rp or t e d at ta ck on he r ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s. Thu s, wit h res pe ct to Bak er's

te st im on y , Ja ck so n ha s fai le d to pr es erv e an y ch al le ng e ba se d on Ru le 60 8( a), an d we

fin d n o p l a i n erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to en te r a pr et ria l or de r ex cl ud in g

Ja ck so n's ch arac te r wit ne ss es

. Ch is m v. CNH Am

. LLC, 63 8 F.3 d 63 7, 64 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (h ol di ng pl ai n erro r rev ie w is ap pr op ria te whe n a "p art y fai ls to m ak e a ti m el y

ob jecti on " t o a n e vi de nt ia ry rul in g)

.

W e al so ho ld th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by li m it in g Ja ck so n's ti m e to pr es en t

ev id en ce at tri al

. "Tri al co ur ts are pe rm it te d to im po se reas on ab le ti m e li m it s on th e

pr es en ta ti on of ev id en ce to pr ev en t un du e de la y, was te of ti m e, or ne ed le ss

pr es en ta ti on of cu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce." Harri s v. Ch an d, 50 6 F.3 d 11 35

, 11 41 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d )

. "Tri al m an ag em en t de ci si on s are wit hi n th e co ur t's

di sc ret io n a nd are re ve rs ed on ly fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n." Id

. "Ab us e m ay oc cu r

whe n a co ur t ex cl ud es pr ob at iv e, no nc um ul at iv e ev id en ce si m

pl y be cau se it s

in tro du ct io n wil l cau se de la y ." I d

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Hav in g cl os el y

rev ie wed th e tri al reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at th e ti m e li m it di d no t pr ev en t Ja ck so n

-1 3-fro m pr es en ti n g an y pr ob at iv e, no nc um ul at iv e ev id en ce. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t

co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n l im it in g J ack so n's ti m e.

2. Cell Phon e Reco rds an d Go og le Map s Pri nto ut

Ja ck so n ne xt as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g he r m ot io n to ex cl ud e

Lev y 's ex pe rt te st im on y be cau se of a la te di sc lo se d su pp le m en ta l ex pe rt rep or t. "We

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's ev id en ti ary ru li ng s un de r an ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd ."

Town se nd v. Ba y er Co rp ., 77 4 F .3d 44 6, 4 60 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) . The rec or d i nd ic at es

th at on Decem

be r 2, 20 13

, Ja ck so n to ok an ex te ns iv e d e po si ti on of Lev y in Lit tl e

Ro ck

, Ark an sa s. On th e m or ni ng of th e de po si ti on , Lev y co nd uc te d a fie ld st ud y of

th e cel l to wers lo cat ed ne ar Ja ck so n's ho us e. Dur in g th e de po si ti on , Lev y di sc lo se d

to Ja ck s on 's co un se l th at he ha d co nd uc te d th e fie ld st ud y , di sc us se d th e

m et ho do l o g i e s h e ut il iz ed

, an d fu ll y ex pl ai ne d th e res ul ts of th e st ud y

. App ro xi m at el y two week s la te r, Lev y pr ov id ed Ja ck so n wit h a su pp le m en ta l ex pe rt

rep or t t ha t s um m ari zed th e sa m e in fo rm at io n Lev y di sc lo se d d ur in g h is de po si ti on

.

Ru le 37 (c)( 1) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e pr ov id es th at "[i ]f a pa rty

fai ls to pr ov id e in fo rm at io n

. . . as req ui red by Ru le 2 6 ( a ) o r ( e ), th e pa rty is no t

al lo wed to us e th at in fo rm at io n . .

. to su pp ly evi de nc e o n a m ot io n, at a he ari ng , or

at a tri al , u nl e s s th e fai lu re was su bs ta nt ia ll y jus ti fie d or is ha rm le ss ." Fed . R . C iv

. P. 37 (c ) ( 1 )

. All st at e co nc ed es th at it s di sc lo su re of th e rep or t was un ti m el y , bu t

co nt en ds th a t it s la te di sc lo su re was su bs ta nt ia ll y jus ti fie d an d was ha rm le ss

. W e

ag ree. The reco rd in di cat es Ja ck so n fu ll y de po se d Lev y wit h r e s p e c t t o th e fie ld

st ud y an d ne ve r req ue st ed th e op po rtu ni ty to ta ke a su pp le m en ta l de po si t i o n

. See

W eg en er v

. Jo hn so n, 52 7 F.3d 68 7, 69 2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (no ti ng tri al co ur t h as wid e

di sc ret io n in fas hi on in g rem ed ie s or sa nc ti on s f o r v i ol at io ns of Ru le 26 (a) or (e)) ;

Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 37 (c)( 1) (s ta ti ng sa nc ti on s co ur t m ay im po se in ad di ti on to or in st ead

of ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce). Ja ck s o n a ls o fai ls to id en ti fy an y in fo rm at io n in th e

rep or t th at to ok he r by su rp ris e or th at sh e ne ed ed to di sc us s wit h Lev y in m or e de ta il

.

-1 4-W e th us can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g Ja ck so n's

m ot io n t o e xc lu de Levy's ex pe rt t es ti m on y

. 5

Ja ck so n ne xt co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by refu si ng to ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce

of th e Goo gl e Map s pr in to ut

. It is un di sp ut ed th at th e pr in to ut was he ars ay ev id en ce,

an d Ja ck so n ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h t ha t dr iv e ti m e es ti m at es fro m Goo gl e Map s are

so accu rat e th at th ey can no t reas on ab ly be qu es ti on ed

. F e d

. R. Evi d. 20 1( b)
(id en ti fy in g th e ki nd s of fact s th at m ay be jud ic ia ll y no ti ced ), 80 1 & 80 2.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g t he Goo gl e Map s p rin to ut

.

3. Ev id ence of Cr imina l Cha rg es

Ja ck so n ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ex cl ud in g e v i d e nc e th at no

cri m in al ch arg es were fil ed wit h res pe ct to th e fir e. "As a ge ne ral ru le

, ev id en ce th at 6

cri m in al ch arg es were no t br ou gh t is in ad m is si bl e in a ci vi l cas e ari si ng ou t of th e

sa m e ev en ts as th e cri m in al ch arg es ." Gof fs te in v. Stat e Farm

Fir e & Ca s. Co., 76 4

W e al so reject Ja ck so n's co nt e nt io n th at ev id en ce reg ard in g th e us e of 5

hi st or ic al cel l ph on e da ta to id en ti fy th e ge og rap hi c area i n whi ch a ph on e was lo cat ed at a gi ve n ti m e is in he ren tl y un rel ia bl e. Fed eral co ur ts ha ve reg ul arl y ad m it te d ex pe rt te st im on y reg ard in g th is type of ev id en ce. E.g., Uni te d St at e s v

. Ev a n s , 8 9 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 94 9, 95 5 (N.D. Ill

. 20 12 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ben fo rd

, N o

. 2: 09 CR8 6, 20 10 W L 23 46 30 5, at *2 -3 (N.D. In d. 20 10 ). Fu rth erm or e, Ja ck so n ne ve r rai se d a Dau be rt ch al le ng e wit h res pe ct to "t he sc ie nt if ic va li di ty of th e pr in ci pl es an d

m et ho do lo gy un de rlyin g [Lev y 's] te st im on y ," an d ther e is no ev id en ce th at th e di st ric t

co ur t cl earl y erre d by al lo win g Lev y 's te st im on y in to th e reco rd

. McKn ig ht v. Jo hn so n Co nt ro ls

, In c., 36 F.3 d 13 96

, 14 07 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (ci ti ng Dau be rt v. Mer rel l

Dow Ph arm ., Inc ., 50 9 U.S. 5 79 , 59 3- 94 (19 93 )).

The reco rd in di cat es , ho wev er, th at i n res po ns e to a juro r's qu es ti on , th e 6

di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed th e jury th at no cri m in al ch arg es ha d be en fil ed bu t in st ru ct ed

th e juro rs th at th ey

were n ot to co ns id er t hi s ev id en ce d ur in g t he ir d el ib erat io ns

.

-1 5-F.2 d 52 2, 52 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Ja ck so n ack no w l e d g e s t h is ge ne ral ru le

, bu t sh e

c on te nd s th e ev id en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en ad m it te d un de r th e do ct rin e of cu rat iv e

ad m is si bi li ty. "Th e do ct rin e of cu rat iv e ad m is si bi li ty a l l o ws a tri al jud ge , in hi s

di sc ret io n, to ad m i t ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce in or de r to reb ut pr ejud ic ia l

ev id en ce whi ch ha s al read y be en erro ne ou sl y ad m it te d." Id

. (q uo ta ti on om i t t ed ).

Ja ck so n co nt en ds th e do ct rin e of c u r a t i v e ad m is si bi li ty is ap pl ic ab le he re be cau se

Bak er's in ve s t i g a t i o n was so bi as ed an d un rel ia bl e th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by

ad m it ti ng ev id en ce rel at ed to th e in ve st ig at io n. Howev er, ha vi ng cl os el y rev ie wed

th e reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at Bak er's in ve st ig at io n was th or ou gh an d th a t h e ha d

su ffi ci en t gr ou nd s to in ve st ig at e Ja ck so n as an ars on su sp ect

. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng Bak er's te st im on y , Ja ck so n

ha s fa il ed to m eet "t he pre req ui si te s fo r cu rat iv e ad m is si bi li ty." Id. at 52 5.

D. Mot io ns for JAML a nd Suf fic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

Ja ck so n ne xt ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e jury's

ve rd ic t. Sp eci fic al ly, Ja ck so n co nt en ds th at

, be cau se th e jury ret ur ne d a ge ne ral

ve rd ic t in fav or of Al ls ta te on it s in te nt io na l acts de fen se , it is po ss ib le th at th e jury

fo un d th at Ja ck so n pe rs on al ly bu rn ed he r ho m e de sp it e th ere be in g no ev id en ce in th e

r e c o r d to su pp or t su ch a fin di ng

. Ja ck so n al so as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d b y

de nyin g he r pr e-v erd ic t m ot io ns fo r JAM L wi th res pe ct to th e is su e of whe th er s he

pe rs on al ly bu rn ed he r ho us e. Howev er, we de cl in e to co ns id er ei th er arg um en t

be cau se Jac ks on fai le d t o p res erv e th es e is su es for ap pe al

.

Alt ho ug h Ja ck so n twi ce m ov ed fo r JAM L be fo re th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, he r fa i l u r e t o f

i l e a ren ewed m ot io n fo r JAM L aft er th e en try of jud gm en t in

fav or of A l ls ta te pr ecl ud es ou r rev ie w of he r ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e ve rd ic t. If th e tri al co ur t do es no t gr an t a m ot io n fo r JAM L

m ad e un de r Ru le 50 (a) "t he co ur t i s c o n s id ered to ha ve su bm it te d th e act io n to th e jury su bjec t to th e co ur t's la te r de ci di ng th e le ga l qu es ti on s rai se d by th e m ot io n. No

-1 6-la te r th an 28 da y s aft er th e en try of jud gm en t

. . . th e m ov an t m ay fil e a ren ew e d

m ot io n fo r [J AML]." Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 50 (b ). The "re qu ire m en t of a ti m el y ap pl ic at io n

fo r jud gm en t aft er ve rd ic t is no t an i d l e m ot io n bu t an es se nt ia l pa rt of [Ru le 50 ]. "

EEOC v. S.W

. Bel l Tel., L.P., 55 0 F.3 d 70 4, 71 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it te d)

. In de ed

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at whe n a pa rty fai ls to fil e a ren ewed

m ot io n fo r JAM L un de r Ru le 50 (b ), "t he re [is ] no ba si s fo r rev ie w of [th e pa rty's]

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce ch al le ng e in th e Co ur t of App eal s." Uni th erm Fo od Sy s.,

In c. v. Swif

t-Ec kr ic h, In c., 54 6 U.S. 39 4, 40 7 (2 00 6) ; se e N.Y. Mar in e an d Gen

. In s.

Co

. v. Co nt 'l Cem e n t C o ., 76 1 F.3 d 83 0, 84 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) ("A pa rty can no t

ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce if it fai le d to fil e a po st ve rd ic t m ot io n un de r

Ru le 50 (b ) aft er th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed it s Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n." ). Our pr eced en t al so

es ta bl is he s th at Ja ck so n's fai lu re to fil e a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n pr ecl ud es ou r rev ie w of

th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of he r pr e-v erd ic t m ot io ns fo r JAM L be cau se th ey to o were

ba se d on a su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce arg um en t. S.W

. Bel l Tel., 55 0 F.3 d at 70 9- 10

. W e th us "co nc lu de th at [J ack so n's ] fai lu re to fil e a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n aft er th e en try

of jud gm en t le av es us wit ho ut a ba si s to rev ie w [h er] su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce

ch al le ng es ." Id . at 7 11

.

E. Mot io ns Rela ted to All st at e' s Pa yment o f Ja ck so n' s Mo rtg ag e

Ja ck so n ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t c ou rt erre d in de nyin g he r m ot io n to req ui re

All st at e to pa y he r m or tg ag e co m pa ny, Nati on st ar Mo rtg ag e, LLC, an d fo r an

in di cat iv e ru li ng reg ard in g th e am ou nt All st at e is r eq ui red to pa y

. Ja ck so n al so

co nt en ds sh e is en ti tl ed to a twel ve pe rcen t st at ut or y pe na lt y an d at to rn ey 's fees wit h

res pe ct to an y pa y m en ts All st at e m ak es to Nati on st ar. "We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's

fin di ng s of fact for clea r erro r an d [it s] le ga l rul in gs de no vo ." Nati ve Am

. Co un ci l

of Trib es v. W eb er, 75 0 F.3 d 74 2, 74 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n om it te d)

. W e rev ie w a de ni al of in di cat iv e rel ie f fo r a b u s e o f di sc ret io n.

Dice Co rp v. Bo ld Tech s., 5 56 Fed . App 'x 3 78 , 38 4 (6 th Cir . 20 14 ).

-1 7-So m e ad di ti on al fact ua l ba ck gr ou nd is he lp fu l in ev al ua ti ng th e va rio us is su es

Ja ck so n rai se s wit h res pe ct to he r m or tg a g e. Ja ck so n's po li cy im po se s a du ty on

All st at e to pa y Nati on st ar "t o th e ex te nt of [it s] in te r e s t " (i.e

., th e m or tg ag e) in

J a c k s o n's ho us e, an d it is un di sp ut ed th at th is du ty was no t rel ie ve d by th e jur y's

de te rm in at io n th at Ja ck so n was res po ns ib le fo r th e fir e. W e al so no te

, ho wev er, th at

th e po li cy req ui res Nati on st ar to es ta bl is h it s rig ht to reco ve ry by fu rn is hi ng a pr oo f

of lo ss . The rec or d i nd ic at es th at , bef or e Ja ck so n fi le d s ui t, Al ls ta te ack no wled ge d

it s du ty t o pa y he r m or tg ag e an d, co ns is te nt wit h th e te rm s of he r po li c y, req ue st ed

a pr oo f of lo ss fro m Ja ck so n's m or tg ag e co m pa ny. Pri or to fin al ly rece iv in g a pr oo f

of lo ss fro m Nati on st ar in Ja nu ary 20 14

, ne arl y two y ears aft e r t h e f i r e oc cu rred

, All st at e m ad e at le as t te n ad di ti on al at te m pt s to ob ta in th is in fo rm at io n. In th e pr oo f

of lo ss , Nati on st ar cl ai m ed it s in te r e s t i n Ja ck so n's pr op ert y was $2 03 ,16 4.4 1, an d

All st at e pr om

pt ly is su ed a ch eck to Nati on st ar in th is am ou nt

. Howev er, Nati on st ar

ha s be en un ab le to pr oc es s th is pa y m en t be cau se Ja c k s o n h as refu se d to co ns en t to

Nati on st a r ' s u s e o f th e fu nd s to pa y he r m or tg ag e. At th e ti m e th is cas e was

su bm it te d, Al ls ta te ha d n ot pa id Jac ks on 's m or tg ag e.

W it h res pe ct to Ja ck so n's m ot io n fo r an in di cat iv e ru li ng , sh e ha s pr es en te d no

ev id en ce or le ga l arg um en t su gg es ti ng th at he r po li cy req ui res All st at e to pa y

Nati on st ar a s um

gre at er t ha n Nat io ns ta r cl ai m ed in it s p ro of of l os s. We t hu s ho ld

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyi n g Ja ck so n's m ot io n fo r an

in di cat iv e ru li ng reg ard in g th e am ou nt All st at e owe s Nati on st ar. Si m il arl y , be cau se

Ja ck so n al on e is res po ns ib le fo r Nati on st ar's de la y in pr oc es si ng All st at e's pa y m en t,

we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of he r m ot io n to req ui re All st at e to pa y Nati on st ar.

W e al so reject Ja ck so n's arg um en t th at sh e is en ti tl ed to a st at ut or y pe na lt y an d

at to rn ey 's fees w i t h res pe ct to th e am ou nt All st at e ul ti m at el y pa y s to Nati on st ar.

Ja ck so n ' s cl ai m fo r a st at ut or y pe na lt y an d at to rn ey 's fees ari se s fro m § 23 -7 9-

20 8( a)(1 ) of

th e Ark an sa s C od e, whi ch st at es :

-1 8-In al l case s in whi ch lo ss oc cu rs an d t he [cas ua lt y in su ran ce co m

pa ny]
sh al l fai l to pa y th e lo ss es wit hi n th e ti m e s p e c i f i e d in th e po li cy aft er de m an d i s m ad e, th e [co m pa ny] sh al l b e li ab le to pa y th e h ol de r of th e

po li cy . . ., in ad di ti on to th e am ou nt of th e lo ss , t welv e pe rcen t (1 2%)

da m ag es up on t h e a mo u nt of th e lo ss , to ge th er wit h al l reas on ab le

at to rn ey 's fe es for

th e p ro se cu ti on an d c ol le ct io n o f th e lo ss

.

Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 23 -7 9- 20 8( a)(1 ). "Th is pr ov is io n is pe na l in na tu re an d is th eref or e

st ric tl y co ns tru ed in fav or of th e pa rty so ug ht to be pe na li zed

. It sh ou ld no t be hel d

to ap pl y ex cep t in cas es th at co m e cl earl y wit hi n th e st at ut e." Pri m eri ca Life In s. Co

.

v. W at so n, 20 7 S.W .3d 44 3, 44 8 (Ark

. 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The pu rp os e of th is

pr ov is io n is to in hi bi t "t he un warra nt ed de la y in g ta ct ic s of in su rers ." Id

. In li gh t of

th is pu rp os e, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t ha s co ns is te nt ly de cl in ed to ap pl y § 23 -7 9-

20 8( a)(1 ) in ci rcu m st an ces whe re th e in su rer's de la y in pa y m en t was jus ti fie d. Id

. at

44 9- 50 ; se e Cl ark Cen te r, In c. v. Nat'l Life & Acci de nt In s. Co

. , 43 3 S.W .2d 15 1,

15 2- 53 (Ark

. 19 68 ) (h ol di ng un ti m el y p a ym en t was jus ti fie d whe re in su rer

co ns is te nt ly ack no wled ge d it s du ty to pa y un de r po li cy an d in su red fai le d to "fu rn is h

pr op er an d ne ces sa ry in fo rm at io n" de sp it e in su rer's go od fai th at te m pt s to ob ta in it );

se e al so Farm Bu reau Mu t. In s. Co

. of Ark

. v. Sh aw, 60 0 S.W .2d 43 2, 43 5 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 19 80 ) (aff

irming tri al co ur t's award of st at ut or y pe na lt y an d at to rn ey s' fees to

in su red whe re in su rer's pa y m en t to m or tg ag ee was un ti m el y an d in su rer pr ov id ed "n o jus ti fic at io n fo r th e de la y "). Here, it is cl ear th at All st at e's de la y in pa y in g Ja ck so n's

m or tg ag e was in it ia ll y cau se d by Nati on st ar's fai lu re to "fu rn is h pr op er an d ne ces sa ry

in fo rm at io n," an d la te r by Ja ck so n's refu sa l to co ns en t to th e pa y m en t. Cl ark Cen te r,

43 3 S.W .2d at 15 2- 53

. In ad di ti on , Al ls ta te m ad e nu m ero us go od fai th at te m pt s to

acq ui re th e in fo rm at io n it ne ed ed to pa y Ja ck so n's m or tg ag e, an d th ere is no ev id en ce

su gg es ti ng th at All st at e en ga ge d in an y "u nwa rran te d de la y in g ta ct ic s." W at so n, 20 7

S.W .3d at 44 8. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se All st at e's de la y in pa y in g Nati on st ar is
jus ti fie d, we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of Ja c k s o n's m ot io n fo r a

st at ut or y pe na lt y an d a tt or ne y 's fe es

.

Fi na ll y we reject Jac ks on 's re m ai ni ng co nt en ti on s as be in g wi th ou t m eri t.

-1 9-II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e r e a s o n s st at ed ab ov e, we affi rm th e jury's ve rd ic t in fav or of All st at e

an d t he va rio us rul in gs by the di st ric t co ur t t ha t J ack so n a pp eal s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 0-