## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 25 14

__ __ __ __ __ _

Alb ert Davi d M at th ew, M.D., *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Unu m Life I ns ur an ce Co m

pa ny *
of Am eri ca, *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 17 , 20 11
Fil ed : Ap ril 25 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Alb ert Dav id Mat th ew, M

. D

. ("M at th ew")

, a ur ol og ic su rg eo n, br ou gh t th is

act io n ag ai ns t Unu m Life In su ran ce Co m pa ny ("Un um "), se ek in g di sa bi li ty be ne fit s

un de r th e te rm s of hi s di sa bi li ty in su ran ce po li cy wit h Unu m

. The cas e was tri ed to

a jury, whi ch fo un d th at Mat th ew was en ti tl ed to res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. Unu m

ap pe al s se ve ral di st ric t co ur t or de rs fo ll owi ng t h e ve rd ic t. Sp eci fic al ly, Unu m

co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng Mat th ew's po st -tr ia l m ot io n to co rrec t th e

sp eci al ve rd ic t, in award in g pr ejud gm en t in te res t, an d i n d en y in g Un um 's p os t-t ria l

m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, a ne w tri al an d de cl arat io n of a m is tri al

. Fo r

th e rea so ns st at ed be lo w, we affi rm in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt.I. Back gr ou nd

On Mar ch 27

, 19 90

, Unu m is su ed a di sa bi li ty in co m e po li cy ("t he Po li cy ") to

Mat th ew. Pu rs ua nt to th e Po li cy , Unu m was ob li ga te d to pa y Mat th ew "t he Mo nt hl y

Ben efi t Am ou nt " in an y m on th aft er an in it ia l ni ne ty-day "el im in at io n pe rio d" th at

Mat th ew was "t ot al ly di sa bl ed or ex pe rie nc e[d ] at le as t a 20 % lo ss of ne t in co m e in

hi s reg ul ar oc cu pa ti on as a res ul t of a pr es en t in jury or si ck ne ss ." Und er th e te rm s of

th e Po li cy ,

'Gro ss rev en ue ' m ean s an y in co m e r e c ei ve d by th e In su red or hi s bu si ne ss fo r pe r s o n a l se rv ic es pe rfo rm ed by hi m in hi s reg ul ar

oc cu pa ti on

. . . .

1

'Net in co m e' m ean s gr os s rev en ue m in us th e In su red 's sh are of th e us ua l

an d cu st om ary bu si ne ss ex pe ns es whi ch he or hi s com pa ny in cu rs on a
reg ul ar ba si s an d are es se nt ia l to hi s es ta bl is he d bu si ne ss op erat io n.

. . .

'Pri or ne t in co m e' m ea n s t h e l a rg es t of : (1 ) th e In su red 's av erag e

m on th ly ne t in co m e fo r th e la st 12 m on th s be fo re th e Eli m in at io n Peri od
b e ga n; (2 ) th e In su red 's av erag e m on th ly n et in co m e fo r th e 12 -mo n t h

pe rio d i m m ed ia te ly befo re t ho se 12 m on th s; or (3 ) th e h ig he st av erag e

mo n t h l y ne t in co m e fo r an y two co ns ecu ti ve y ears of th e la st 5 y ea r s be fo re t he Eli m in at io n P eri od be ga n. . . .

A Nov em be r 20 01 en ha nc em en t to th e Po li cy ch an ge d th e de fin it io n of "g ro ss 1

rev en ue " to "an y in co m e earn ed by th e In su red or hi s bu si ne ss fo r pe rs on al se rv ic es
pe rfo rm ed by him

in hi s re gu la r oc cu pa ti on ."

-2

-'Los s of ne t in co m e' m ean s th e In su red 's in de xe d pr io r n e t in co m e 2

m in us th e ne t in co m e he rece iv ed fo r th e m on th to whi ch a p a ym en t rel at es

. . . .

'Reg ul ar oc cu pa ti on ' m ean s th e In su red 's oc cu pa ti o n a t th e ti m e th e Eli m in at io n P eri od be gi ns

. . . .

Befo re be co m in g di sa bl ed

, Mat th ew pr act ic ed as a ur ol og ic su rg e o n f or
ei gh te en y ears

. He was t h e f o u n d i ng pa rtn er of Adu lt & Ped ia tri c Uro lo gy, PLLP
("APU" ) in St

. Cl ou d, Mi nn es ot a, whe re hi s pr act ic e in vo lv ed in -o ffi ce co ns ul ta ti on s

an d pr oc ed ur es a s w el l as su rg eri es

. Fo ll owi ng an an kl e in jury in 19 93

, Mat th ew
de ve lo pe d a de ge ne rat iv e an kl e co nditio n, whi ch cau se d th e m ajor weig ht -s up po rti ng
b o n e i n hi s an kl e to de te rio rat e an d, ev en tu al ly, co ll ap se

. Thi s in te rfer ed wit h

Mat th ew's ab il it y to walk or st an d at th e op erat in g ta bl e fo r an y pr ol on ge d pe rio d of

ti m e. In 19 96

, on th e ad vi ce of hi s tre at in g do ct or , Mat th ew st op pe d do in g su rg ic al

pr oc ed ur es th at req ui red st an di ng for m or e th an an ho ur an d a ha lf.

On Aug us t 22

, 19 96

, Mat th ew ad vi se d U n u m i n w r i ti ng th at he in te nd ed to

m ak e a cl ai m fo r di sa bi li ty b en efi ts un de r th e Po li cy , and on Feb ru ary 1 9, 19 97 , h e

su bm it te d a di sa bi li ty cl ai m to Unu m req ue st in g to ta l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. Acco rd in g

to th e Po li cy ,

'Tot al di sa bi li ty' an d 'to ta ll y di sa bl ed ' m ean in jury o r si ck ne ss re s tri ct s th e In su red 's ab il it y to pe rfo rm th e m at eri al an d su bs ta nt ia l du ti es of hi s

Und er th e Po li cy , "p rio r ne t in co m e" is in de xe d to th e Co ns um er Pri ce In de x 2

fo r All Urb an Co ns um ers pu bl is he d by th e Bu reau of Lab or St at is ti cs ("C PI-U" ). A

ne w "CP I-U Facto r" is cal cu la te d on each an ni ve rs ary of th e fir st da y of a pe rio d of
di sa bi li ty. The CPI- U Fact or is th e rat io of th e m os t rece nt ly pu bl is he d CPI- U to th e la st CPI-U p ub li sh ed in th e cal en da r y ear bef or e di sa bi li ty be ga n. Pri or ne t in co m e is m ul ti pl ie d by th e rel ev an t CPI- U Fac t or be fo re be in g us ed to cal cu la te th e Max im um Dis ab il it y

Ben efi t.

-3

-reg ul ar o ccu pa ti on to an ex te nt th at pr ev en ts hi m fro m en ga gi ng in hi s
reg ul ar o ccu pa ti on

.

'Res id ua l di sa bi l i t y' an d 'res id ua ll y di sa bl ed ' m ean in jury or si ck ne ss do es no t pr ev en t th e I n s ur ed fro m en ga gi ng in hi s reg ul ar oc cu pa ti on , BUT do es res tri ct h i s a bi li ty to pe rfo rm th e m at eri al an d su bs ta nt ia l
du ti es of hi s reg ul ar oc cu pa ti on : (i) fo r as lo ng a ti m e as he cu st om ari ly

pe rfo rm ed th em be fo re th e in jury or si ck ne ss ; or (ii ) as effe ct iv el y as he

cu st om ari ly perfo rm ed th em be fo re t he in

jury or si ck ne ss

.

The am ou nt of be ne fit s owe d un de r th e Po li cy is cal cu la te d di ffer en tl y de pe nd in g on

th e ex te nt of Mat th ew's di sa bi li ty. In an y gi ve n m on th

, if Mat th ew "i s to ta ll y di sa bl ed

or [h is ] lo ss of ne t in co m e is 75 % or m or e," Unu m is req ui red to pa y "t he Max im um
Dis ab il it y Ben efi t," whi ch is a fix e d d o l la r am ou nt of $1 1,9 24

, fo r th at m on th

. If,

ho wev er, Mat th ew's "l os s of ne t in co m e is le ss th an 75 % bu t at le as t 20 %," th e

am ou nt pa y ab le is de te rm in ed by the fol lo win g fo rm ul a:

lo ss of n et in co m e x Max im um Dis ab il it y

Ben efi t

pr io r ne t i nc om e

In Mar ch

, Ju ne , Ju ly an d Aug us t of 19 97

, Unu m req u e s t e d cert ai n fin an ci al

in fo rm at io n fro m Mat th ew, in cl ud in g co pi es of Mat th ew's of fic e bi ll in g reco rd s,

ap po in tm en t bo ok

, su rg ic al sc he du le s, an d hi s pe rs on al an d bu si ne ss ta x ret ur ns

. The

reco rd refl ect s th at Mat th ew si g n e d rel eas es al lo win g Unu m to req ue st hi s su rg ic al

sc he du le s fro m th e ho sp it al s at whi ch he wor ke d, an d th at Unu m rece iv ed Mat th ew's

su rg ic al sc he du le s fo r th e pe rio d Ja nu ary 1, 19 95 to Apr il 2, 19 97 fro m Co lu m bi a St

. Cl ou d Su rg ic al Cen te r. Howev er, Mat th ew refu se d to pr ov i d e h i s p ers on al or
bu si ne ss ta x ret ur ns , arg ui ng th at th ey were no t rel ev an t to hi s en ti tl em en t to be ne fit s.

On Aug us t 19

, 19 97

, Unu m no ti fie d Mat th ew th at it di d no t ha ve th e ne ces sa ry

fin an ci al in fo rm at io n to de te rm in e whe th er he w as tot al ly or res id ua ll y di sa bl ed un de r

th e Po li cy

. Unu m ren ewed it s req ue st fo r co pi es of Mat th ew's bi ll in g reco rd s an d

-4

-ap po in tm en t bo ok a n d a d v i se d Mat th ew's co un se l th at "fa il ur e to pr ov id e th is

in fo rm at io n m ay res ul t in ou r in ab il it y to m ak e a li ab il it y de ci si on on Dr. Mat th ew's

cl ai m ." On Se p t e mb e r 19

, 19 97

, Unu m warn ed th at fai lu re to pr ov id e ad di ti on al

in fo rm at io n by Sep te m

be r 26

, 19 97 "wi ll res ul t in th e cl os in g of ou r ha nd li ng of Dr.

Mat th ew's cl ai m fil e." On Sep te m be r 29

, 19 97

, Unu m in di cat ed th at be cau se it ha d

rece iv ed no ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n fr om Mat th ew, it was un ab le to accu rat el y

a d ju di cat e Mat th ew's cl ai m an d, th eref or e, co ul d no t pr ov id e res id ua l or t o t a l

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s to Mat th ew. Howev er, U n u m i n v it ed Mat th ew to fo rward an y
ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n t o i ts off ic e at an y ti m e fo r pr om

pt rev ie w.

On Sep te m

b er 23

, 20 04

, rep res en te d by ne w co un se l, Mat th ew ren ewed hi s

req ue st fo r di sa bi li ty be ne fit s un de r th e Po li cy , an d pr ov id ed Unu m wit h su m m ary

fin an ci al reco rd s for APU da ti ng ba ck to 19 97

. The se reco rd s sh owe d bo th in co m e

earn ed by Mat t h e w in pr ov id in g pr of es si on al se rv ic es to hi s pa ti en ts an d pa ss iv e

in co m e di st rib ut ed to hi m as a pa rtn er of APU un de r APU's pr of it -s ha rin g

arra ng em en t. On Apr il 20

, 20 05

, Mat th ew fu rn is he d U n u m w i t h hi s pr od uc ti on
bi ll in g reco rd s da ti ng ba ck to 19 96

, ex cl u d i n g t h e reco rd s al read y pr ov id ed

. Howev er, Mat th ew co nt in ue d to res is t p r o v i d i n g hi s pe rs on al an d bu si ne ss ta x

ret ur ns

. On May 2, 20 05

, Unu m ad vi se d Mat th ew th at wit ho ut hi s ta x ret ur ns , it was

un ab le to accu rat el y cal cu la te hi s pr io r m on th ly in co m e an d cu rren t m on th ly in co m e

fo r pu rp os es of de te rm in in g whe t h e r t h e r e w a s a lo ss of in co m e of at le as t twen ty

pe rc en t or gr eat er fo r th e cl ai m ed pe rio d of di sa bi li ty. Nev ert he le ss , Unu m ag reed

to is su e to ta l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fro m Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04 on ward s un de r a res erv at ion

of rig ht s. On May 16

, 20 05

, Mat th ew pr ov id ed Unu m wit h hi s pe rs on al an d bu si ne ss

3

ta x ret ur ns fo r th e ta x y ears 19 91 th ro ug h 20 03

. The reaf te r, he pr ov id ed ta x ret ur ns

fo r 20 04 an d 2 00 5.

Unu m tre at ed Sep te m

be r 23

, 20 04 as th e da te of di sa bi li ty. Thu s, th e ni ne ty- 3

da y el im in at io n pe rio d m ean t th at Mat th ew di d no t be gi n act ua ll y rece iv in g be ne fit s

un ti l Dec em

be r of 20 04

.

-5

-On May 2, 20 08

, Unu m co nc lu de d th at Mat th ew be cam e tot al ly dis ab le d wit hi n

th e m ean in g of th e Po li cy on Ju ly 12

, 20 0 5 be cau se th at was th e da te on whi ch he

st op pe d wor ki n g co m

pl et el y du e to hi s co nd it io n. Unu m fu rth er de te rm in ed th at

Mat th ew di d no t qu al ify fo r res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s pr io r to Ju ly 12

, 20 05 be cau se
he di d no t in cu r a twen ty pe rcen t or m or e lo ss in n et earn in gs fo r th e y ears 19 96

th ro ug h 20 05

. The refo re, Unu m req ue st ed th at Mat th ew rep ay th e be ne fit s he ha d

be en pa id un de r a res erv at io n of rig ht s fo r th e pe rio d Sep te m be r 23

, 2 0 04 th ro ug h

Ju ly 11, 2 00 5.

On Ju ne 11

, 20 08

, Mat th ew co m m en ced th e in st an t act io n in th e Dis tri ct Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, se ek in g to ta l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s or , in th e al te rn at iv e,

res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, fo r th e pe rio d Octo be r 1, 19 96 th ro ug h Ju ly 11

, 20 05

. Unu m co un te r-cl ai m ed fo r rep ay m en t of $1 14 ,47 0.4 8 i n b e n e fit s al read y pa id to

Mat th ew un de r a res erv at io n of rig ht s. Sp eci fical ly, Unu m so ug ht $8 3,4 74 in be ne fit s

pa id to Mat th ew be fo re J u l y 1 2

, 2 0 0 5, as well as be ne fit s pa id to hi m du rin g th e

ni ne ty da y s afer Ju ly 12

, 2 0 0 5

, u n de r th e th eo ry th at th e Po li cy 's ni ne ty-day

el im in at io n pe rio d sh ou ld ha ve st art ed on th at da te

. The di st r ic t co ur t de ni ed th e

pa rti es ' cro ss m ot io ns fo r su mm a r y jud gm en t, an d th e m at te r was tri ed to a jury

be gi nn in g o n J an ua ry

4, 2 01 0.

A t tri al

, Unu m arg ue d th at Mat th ew was no t en ti tl ed to res id ua l di sa b i l i t y
be ne fit s be cau se hi s ta x ret ur ns de m on st rat ed th at hi s ta xa bl e in co m e di d no t de crea se by twen ty pe rcen t or m or e aft er 19 96

. Mat th ew arg ue d th at he was e n t i t l ed to

res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fro m Octo be r 1, 19 96 on ward s be cau se th e rev en ue

ge ne rat ed fro m se rv ic es th at he hi m se lf pe rf or m ed de cl in ed by twen ty pe rcen t or m or e

aft er th at da te

. He po in te d to APU's al lo cat io n sh eet s, whi ch sh owe d th at

, as a res ul t

of hi s in jury, hi s pe rs on al pr od uc ti on de cl in ed fro m twen ty-fiv e pe rcen t of th e APU

pa rtn ers ' ov eral l pr od uc ti on in 19 95

, whe n APU ha d fo ur pa rtn ers , to ei gh t-a nd -a-h al f

pe rcen t in 19 99

, whe n th ere were si x pa rtn ers , an d th ree pe rcen t in 20 04

, whe n, ag ai n,

th ere were si x pa rtn ers

. Ma t t h e w arg ue d th at hi s ta xa bl e in co m e was irr el ev an t

-6

-be cau se it in cl ud ed hi s di st rib ut io n of pa rtn ers hi p pr of it s, whi ch was a pr op or ti on of

th e rev en ue ge ne rat ed b y A P U ' s c om bi ne d st aff an d, th eref

or e, di d no t refl ect th e
de cl in e in rev en ue ge ne rat ed fro m pe rs on al se rv ic es pe rf o r med b y Mat th ew, as

req ui red by th e Po li cy 's de fin it io n of "n et in co m e." App lying th e fo rm ul a se t ou t in

th e Po li cy , Mat th ew cal cu la te d th at he was owe d a to ta l of $1 ,00 6,3 80 .70 in di sa bi li ty

be ne fit s fo r th e p eri od Octo be r 1, 1 99 6 t hr ou gh Ju ly 11, 2 00 5.

The jury de te rm in ed th at Mat th ew m et th e d efi ni ti on of t ot al di sa bi li ty und er

th e Po li cy fro m Decem

be r 1, 20 04 to th e pr es en t, an d th at he was en ti tl ed to res id ua l

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fo r th e pe rio d Octo be r 1, 19 96 th ro ug h Decem be r 1, 20 04

. On th e

sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm , th e jury in di cat ed th at Mat th ew wa s e n t i tl ed to rece iv e "$ 1,0 06 ,38 0" in res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s le ss "$ 11 4,0 00 al read y pa i d

, " w hi ch
"eq ua ls $8 92 ,38 0." The sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm al so as ke d: "Di d Dr. Mat th ew rece iv e
di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fro m Unu m fo r th e pe rio d fro m Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04

, to Octo be r 10

, 20 05

, to whi ch he was no t en ti tl ed ? " I n an swe r, th e jury cro ss ed ou t th e wor d

"Se pt em be r," re pl aced it wit h th e wor d "Decem be r," and ch eck ed th e an swe r "No ."

F o l lo win g th e jury ve rd ic t, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Mat th ew's m ot io n t o

co rrec t th e sp eci al ve rd ic t to refl ect th e am ou nt of $9 22 ,90 6 as th e res id ua l di sa bi li ty

be ne fit s awa rd ed to Mat th ew. The di st ric t cou rt als o award ed pre jud gm en t i nt eres t

in th e am ou nt of $4 98 ,34 0 on Mat th ew's res id ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m

. The co ur t de ni ed

Unu m 's po st -tr ia l m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r o f l a w , a n ew tri al

, an d a
de cl arat io n o f a m is tri al . Unu m ap pe al s ea ch of t he se po st -tr ia l o rd ers

.

-7

-II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Co rr ect io n o

f t he Sp eci al

Verd ic t

Unu m co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in am en di ng th e jud gm en t pu rs ua nt

to Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 59 (e). "Ru le 59 (e) m ot io ns se rv e th e li m it ed fu nc ti on of co rrec ti ng 4

m an ife st erro rs of la w or fact or to pr es en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce." Uni te d St at es

v. Met ro

. St

. Lou is Sewer Dis t., 44 0 F.3 d 93 0, 93 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. "[A] di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n to al te r or am en d a jud gm en t

un de r Ru le 59 (e), an d we wil l rev ers e on ly fo r a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n." SFH, In c.

v. Mi ll ard Refr ig erat ed Serv s., In c., 33 9 F.3 d 73 8, 74 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). "An ab us e of

di sc ret io n oc cu rs whe re th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to co ns id er an im po rta nt fact or , gi ve s
si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im p r o p e r f a c t o r, or co m

m it s a cl ear erro r of
jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s." Kur ka v. Io wa Cn ty., Io wa, 62 8 F.3 d 95 3, 95 7
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so In no va ti ve Hom e Heal th

Care

, In c. v. P.T.-O.T. Ass oc s. of th e Bl ack Hil ls

, 14 1 F.3 d 12 84

, 1 2 8 6 ( 8 t h Ci r.

19 98 ) ("An ab us e of di sc ret io n wil l on ly be fo un d if th e di st ric t co ur t's jud gm en t was
ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact ua l fin di ng s or erro ne ou s le ga l co nc lu si on s." (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th a t th e jury acc ep te d Mat th ew's cal cu la ti on of

th e res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s owe d fo r th e pe rio d Octo be r 1, 19 96 th ro ug h Ju ly 11

, 20 05 , bu t m ad e a m is ta ke reg ard in g t he am ou nt of d am ag es th at Unu m ha d a lre ad y

pa id to Mat th ew un de r a res er v a t i o n of rig ht s fo r th e pe rio d Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04

th ro ug h Ju ly 11

, 20 05

. On th e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm , th e jury in di cat ed th at Mat th ew

was en ti tl ed to "$ 1,0 06 ,38 0
- $1 14 ,00 0 ALREADY PAID EQUALS $8 92 ,38 0.0 0."

The di st ric t co ur t co nv ert ed Mat th ew's Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 60 (a) m ot io n to co rrec t 4

th e sp eci al ve rd ic t t o a m ot io n u nd er Ru le 59 (e).

-8

-A s th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y ob se rv ed

, ho wev er, Unu m ha d pa id Mat th ew on ly

$8 3,4 74 for th e p eri od Sep te m be r 23 , 20 04 th ro ug h J ul y 12 , 20 05

. 5

The so ur ce of th e jury's co nf us io n is read il y ap pa ren t. Dur in g cl os in g

arg um en ts

, Unu m 's co un se l arg ue d th at th e to ta l da m ag es fig ur e of fere d by Mat th ew
sh ou ld be red uc ed be cau se it in cl ud ed Decem be r of 20 04 an d th e fir st si x m on th s of

20 05

. Co un se l rem in de d th e jury th at Unu m ha d al read y pa id Mat th ew di sa bi l i t y
be ne fit s fo r th os e s ev en m on th s an d ex pl ai ne d, in co rrec tl y , "[t ]hat is th e $1 14 ,00 0

th at Unu m is as ki ng to ge t ba ck in it s ov erp ay m en t cl ai m ." Late r, co un se l el ab or at ed

, "Un um is se ek in g to reco ve r th e be ne f i t s pa id fo r th e di sa bi li ty pe rio d fro m Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04 t h r o u g h J u ly 11

, 20 05

. And I be li ev e th e sp eci fic nu m be r is

writ te n do wn in on e of y ou r ex hi bi ts

, bu t it is ab ou t $1 14 ,00 0." Co un se l fo r Mat th ew

co m po un de d th e pr ob le m in hi s own cl os in g arg um en t by acce pt in g th at th e am ou nt

Unu m ha d al read y pa id fo r th e pe rio d Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04 th ro ug h Ju ly 11

, 20 05

sh ou ld be de du ct ed fro m Mat th ew's to ta l da m ag es fig ur e, bu t th en rep eat in g th e

in co rrec t $1 14 ,00 0 fi g u r e a s th e am ou nt th at sh ou ld be de du ct ed to acco un t fo r th e
be ne fit s al read y

pa id for th at pe rio d.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fin di ng th at th e jury

in te nd ed to award Mat th ew $1 ,00 6,3 80 les s t he am ou nt Unu m ha d a lre ad y pa id fo r

th e pe rio d D e c e mb e r 1, 20 04 th ro ug h Ju ly 11

, 20 05

, an d th at th e jury in co rrec tl y
be li ev ed th at Unu m ha d pa id Mat th ew $1 14 ,00 0 fo r th at pe rio d. The di st ric t co ur t's

fin di ng is su pp or te d by th e jury's res po ns e to Que st io n Si x on th e sp e c i a l ve rd ic t

fo rm , whi ch in di cat ed th at Mat th ew ha d no t rece iv ed di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fo r th e pe rio d

Decem be r 23

, 20 04 t h r ou gh Octo be r 10

, 20 05 to whi ch he was no t en ti tl ed

. In

am en di ng th e jud gm en t to refl ect th e am ou nt of $9 22 ,90 6 as th e res id ua l di sa bi li ty

A ft er al low ing fo r th e ni ne ty-day el im in at io n pe rio d, U num pa id Ma tth ew tot al 5

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fo r Decem be r of 20 04 an d th e fir st si x mo n t h s o f 20 05

, to ta li ng $8 3,4 74 . Unu m

do es no t co nt es t t hi s p oi nt on ap pe al

.

-9

-be ne fit s award ed to Mat th ew, th e di st ric t co ur t was m erel y co rrec ti ng a m is ta ke th at

ap pe a r e d on th e face of th e ve rd ic t. W e can no t sa y th at th is was a cl ear ab us e of

di sc ret io n.

B. Prej ud gme nt Int er es t

Unu m co nt en ds th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in award in g p reju dg m en t i nt eres t

un de r Mi nn es ot a co m

m on la w. "Be cau se th is is a di ve rs it y act io n, Mi nn es ot a la w

6

co nt ro ls th e award of pr ejud gm en t in te res t." Ch il dr en 's Bro ad

. Co rp

. v. W al t Dis ne y

Co

., 35 7 F.3 d 86 0, 86 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Und er Mi nn es ot a co m m on la w, pr ejud gm en t

in te res t ru nn in g f

r om th e da te th e cl ai m accr ue d m ay be award ed "i n th e cas e of

un li qu id at ed cl ai m s on l y whe re th e da m ag es were read il y as cert ai na bl e by

co m pu ta ti on or refe ren ce to ge ne ral ly reco gn iz ed st an da rd s su ch as m ark et va lu e an d

no t whe re th e am ou nt of da m ag es de pe nd ed up on co nt in ge nc ie s or up on jury

di sc ret io n." Po tt er v. Hart zel l Pro pe ll er, In c., 18 9 N.W .2d 49 9, 50 4 (Mi nn

. 19 71 ); se e

al so Nw. Airl in es , In c. v. Fl ig ht Trai ls

, 3 F.3 d 29 2, 29 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). The di st ric t

c o u rt' s de te rm in at io n th at Mat th ew's cl ai m was read il y as cert ai na bl e is a fac t u a l

fin di ng rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Ven tu ra v. Tit an Sp or ts

, In c., 65 F.3 d 72 5, 73 5 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ); Nw. Air li ne s, 3 F.3d at 2 98

.

In Ven tu ra, a jury award ed un pa id ro y al ti es to a wres tl er aft er fin di ng th at th e
de fen da nt ex pl oi te d hi s na m e, vo ic e, an d li ke ne ss in vi de ot ap es of wres tl in g m at ch es

an d on ot he r m er ch an di se wit ho ut au th or iz at io n. 65 F.3 d at 72 8. W e fo un d th at

" [ a ]l t ho ug h

. . . th e ul ti m at e award of da m ag es was m ad e by refe ren ce to ob je c t i v e

st an da rd s (m ark et va lu e), th ere [were ] s u f f i c i e nt qu es ti on s to pr ev en t it fro m be in g
'read il y as cert ai na bl e,' th ereb y pr ecl ud in g a n a ward of p reju dg m en t in te res t." Id

. at

Unu m co nc ed es th at a s a m at te r of st at ut or y la w, Mat th ew is en ti tl ed to 6

pr ejud gm en t in te res t fro m th e co m m en cem en t of th e act io n th ro ug h th e en try of jud gm en t. See Mi nn

. St at

. § 54 9.0 9. Th u s , w e li m it ou r rev ie w to th e award of

pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t u nd er Mi nn es ot a co m m on law.

-1 0-73 5. Sp eci fic al ly, th e jury was req ui red to res ol ve co nt in ge nc ie s in cl ud in g the pr ec is e

ro y al ty rat e an d un se tt l e d pa y m en t de ta il s, su ch as th e who le sa le sa le s ba se , th e

c at eg or iz at io n of ta pe s up on whi ch th e wres tl er ap pe ared in m ul ti pl e ro le s, a n d t h e

ti m e pe rio ds fo r accr ua l an d pa y m en t o f ro y al ti es

. Id .; se e al so Bi tro ni cs Sal es Co

.

v. Mi cro se m ic on du ct or Co rp ., 61 0 F. Su pp

. 55 0

, 5 5 5 (D. Mi nn

. 19 85 ) (fi nd in g pl ai nt iff 's cl ai m no t read il y as c e r t a i na bl e be cau se am bi gu it ie s in a co m

m is si on

ag reem en t in cl ud ed th e le ng th of th e req u i r e d no ti ce pe rio d pr eced in g te rm in at io n;
"wh et he r co m

m is si on s were earn ed on ly on th os e or de rs sh ip pe d pri or to th e en d of

th e te rm in at io n pe r i o d ; a nd whe th er th e co m m is si on rat e was at fiv e or se ve n

pe rcen t" ). In Uni qu e Sy st em s, In c. v. Zot os In te rn at io na l, I n c

. , t h e pl ai nt iff

, a
di st rib ut or of be au ty pr od uc ts

, was award ed lo st -p ro fit s da m ag es in cu rred whe n th e
de fen da nt br each ed a co nt ract to de ve lo p, m an uf act ur e an d de li ve r a no ve l ha ir- sp ray
syste m fo r us e in be au ty sa lo ns

. 62 2 F.2 d 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ). W e he ld th at da m ag es

were no t read il y as cert ai na bl e be cau se th e co ur t ha d to res ol ve co nt i n g e nc ie s

in cl ud in g: whe th er da m ag es co ul d be award ed fo r lo st pr of it s on a pr od uc t whi ch ha d

ne ve r be en m an uf

act ur ed an d di d no t ev en ex is t in fin is he d fo rm ; whe t h e r t h e co st

bi ds an d es ti mates us ed to co m pu te lo st pr of

it s were su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e; an d wha t

was th e es ti m at ed li fe s pa n fo r th e h ai r-s pr ay syste m s. Id . at 3 80

.

W e ha ve al so he ld

, al on g wit h Mi nn es ot a st at e c o u r ts

, th at da m ag es are no t

read il y as cert ai na b l e whe n th ere ex is t nu m ero us m et ho ds of co m pu ti ng da m ag es
whi ch reac h va st ly di ffer en t res ul ts

. Hut ch in so n Uti li ti es Co m m 'n v. Cu rti ss -Wrigh t

Co rp ., 77 5 F.2 d 23 1, 24 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (fi nd in g da m ag es no t read il y as cert ai na bl e
whe re p la in ti ff's two di ffer en t m et ho ds of c om pu ti ng da m ag es wou ld ha ve res ul te d

in a reco ve ry of ei th er $2 .1 m il l i o n o r $ 2 .8 m il li on ); N-Ren Co rp

. v. Am

. Hom e

Ass ur an ce Co

., 61 9 F.2 d 78 4, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (fo ur d iff eren t da m ag e fig ur es

su bm it te d) ; Alle y Co ns tr. Co. v. St at e, 21 9 N.W.2d 92 2, 92 7 (Mi nn

. 19 74 ) (fi nd in g
da m ag es no t read il y as cert ai na bl e whe re pl ai nt iff su gg es te d th ree di ffer en t m et ho ds

of cal cu la ti ng da m ag es whi ch pr od uc ed da m ag e fig ur es ran gi ng fro m $4 31 ,89 8 to
$6 24 ,14 8) ; se e al so Keeg an v. Fi s c h e r C on st r. Co

., 22 3 N.W .2d 14 1, 14 2 (Mi nn

.

-1 1-19 74 ) (fi nd in g pr efi li ng in te res t un av ai la bl e whe re jury was req ui red to res ol ve

qu es ti on s of fact as to th e pr op er m et ho d of cal cu la ti ng da m ag es ). Mi nn es ot a cas es

ha ve fu rth er fo un d th at ve ry la rg e va ria ti on s in es ti m at ed da m ag es pr ecl ud e an award

of pr efi li ng in te res t. See, e.g ., Ven tu ra, 65 F.3 d at 73 6 (d en y in g pr efi li ng in te res t

whe re pl ai nt iff

's da m ag es es ti m at es va rie d by ov er two hu nd red pe rcen t, fro m $8 65 ,72 3 to $1 ,85 5,1 21 ); Po tt er, 1 8 9 N .W .2d at 50 4 (fi nd in g da m ag es no t read il y

as cert ai na bl e whe re est im at es ran ge d from $4 5,0 00 to $9 5,0 00 ); Hog s Unli m it ed v.

Farm Bu reau Mu t. In s. Co

., 40 1 N.W .2d 38 1, 38 7 (Mi nn

. 19 87 ) (rev ers in g award of

pr efi li ng in te res t wh ere e st im at ed da m ag es va rie d fr om $2 18 ,50 0 t o $ 42 8,2 50 ).

The di st ri c t co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at Mat th ew's da m ag es were read il y

as cert ai na bl e was cl earl y erro ne ou s. The di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at th e be ne fit s

ow e d c ou ld be cal cu la te d wit h a de gr ee of pr eci si on by fo ll owi ng th e fo rm ul a an d

rel at ed pr ov is io ns la id ou t in th e Po li cy

. Bu t th e be ne fit s owe d un de r th e te rm s of th e

Po li cy were su bjec t to se ve ral co nt in ge nc ie s th at pr ev en te d th e am ou nt owe d fro m
be in g re ad il y

asc ert ai na bl e. Fi rs t, the am ou nt owe d dep en de d on whet he r Mat th ew

m et th e Po li cy' s d e f

i n it io n of "t ot al ly di sa bl ed " or "re si du al ly di sa bl ed ." Seco nd

,

ev en if Unu m co ul d ha ve be en su re th at Mat th ew was "re si du al ly di sa bl ed " wit hi n th e

m ean in g of th e Po li cy , th e am ou nt of res id u a l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s owe d va rie d fro m

m on th to m on th de pe nd in g on Mat th ew's lo ss of ne t in co m e fo r th at m on th

. In or de r

to cal cu la te Mat th ew's lo ss of ne t in co m e in a gi ve n m on th , Un um ne ed e d t o kn ow

th e to ta l in co m e Mat th ew rece iv ed fo r "p ers on al se rv ic es " pe rfo rm ed by hi m , as well

as hi s "u su al an d cu st om ary" b us in es s ex pe ns es , f o r t ha t m on th

. Unu m al so ha d to

co m pu te Mat th ew's pr e-d is ab il it y ne t in co m e an d in de x th is fig ur e to th e Co ns um er

Pri ce In de x fo r All Urb an Co ns um ers pu bl is h ed by th e Bu reau of Lab or St at is ti cs ("C PI-U" ) be fo re it co ul d be us ed to cal cu la te th e am ou nt of res id ua l di sa bi li ty

be ne fit s owe d. Thu s, th e cal cu la ti on of res i du al di sa bi li ty be ne fit s fo r each m on th

req ui red Unu m t o a s c ert ai n an d rev ie w pr e- an d po st -d is ab il it y "i nc om e," co ns id er

va rio us Po li cy de f

i n i t i on s, an d in de x Mat th ew's pr e-d is ab il it y ne t in co m e by

-1 2-refe ren ce to th e CPI- U. Each o f t h es e st ep s was a co nt in ge nc y of th e type whi ch

un de r Mi nn es ot a la w pre ve nt s t he award of p reju dg m en t i nt eres t.

Mo reo ve r, ev en ha d th e be ne fit s owe d un de r th e t e r ms o f th e Po li cy be en
read il y as cert ai na bl e, Mat th ew pr ev en te d Unu m fro m de te rm in in g th e am ou nt of it s

po te nt ia l li ab il it y by fai li ng to pr ov id e th e rel ev an t fin an ci al in fo rm at io n— in cl ud in g

su m m ary fin an ci al reco rd s fo r APU—u nt il at le as t Sep te m be r 23

, 20 04

. It wou ld be

in eq ui ta bl e to award pr ejud gm en t in te res t un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces

. See Po tt er, 18 9

N.W .2d at 50 4 (ex pl ai ni ng t h a t a de fen da nt "wh o can no t as cert ai n th e am ou nt of

da m ag es fo r whi ch he m ig ht be he ld li ab le can no t be ex pe ct ed to te nd er pa y m en t an d

th ereb y st op th e ru nn in g of in te res t" ); Uni qu e Sy s., In c., 6 2 2 F .2d at 38 0
("P reju dg m en t in te res t is ch arg ed a g a in st a de fen da nt on ly whe n he co ul d ha ve

co m pu te d hi s po te nt ia l li ab il it y wit h so m e de gr ee of cert ai nt y

. . . ."); cf. In re Est at e

of Ren czykows ki

, 40 9 N.W.2 d 88 8, 89 2 (Mi nn

. App

. 19 87 ) (fi nd in g th at th e tri al

co ur t pr op erl y ex erci se d i t s e qu it ab le po wers in award in g pr ejud gm en t in te res t);

acco rd Kan sa s v. Co lo rad o, 54 3 U.S. 86

, 96 (2 00 4) (d es cri bi ng pr ejud gm en t in te res t

as an eq ui ta bl e rem ed y ); Em m en eg ge r v. Bu l l M o o s e Tub e Co ., 3 24 F.3 d 61 6, 62 4
(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at un le ss m an da te d by st at ut e, "an award of pr ejud gm en t

in te res t m ay be an eq ui ta bl e rem ed y "). The refo re, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

in award in g p reju dg m en t i nt eres t u nd er Mi nn es ot a co m m on law.

C. Limi ta ti on s Per io d

Unu m co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g it s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t

as a m at te r of la w b ecau se Mat th ew's r es id ua l di sa bi li ty b en efi ts cl ai m is ba rred by

t h e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. "We rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n f o r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w de no vo , ap pl y in g th e sa m e st an da rd us ed by th at co ur t."

Lawren ce v. CNF Tran sp ., In c., 34 0 F.3 d 48 6, 49 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (al te rat io n s

om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. "Fe de ral co ur ts si tt in g in di ve rs it y ap pl y
th e fo ru m st at e's st at ut e of li m it at io ns ." Zut z v. Case Co rp ., 42 2 F.3d 76 4, 77 4 (8 th

-1 3-Ci r. 20 05 ). Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, di sa bi li ty i n s ur an ce po li ci es are go ve rn ed by

Ch ap te r 62 A of th e M in ne so ta St at ut es

. See Ry an v. ITT Life In s. Co rp ., 45 0

N.W .2d 12 6, 12 8– 29

. (Mi nn

. 19 90 ); Laid la w v. Co m m erci al In s. Co

. of Newark

, 25 5

N.W .2d 80 7, 81 1– 12 (Mi nn

. 19 77 ). Co ns is te nt wit h Mi nn

. St at

. § 62 A.04

, th e Po li cy

pr ov id es th at "[l ]egal act io n m us t be st art ed wit hi n th ree y ears aft er th e writ te n Pro of

of Los s i s re qu ire d t o b e fu rn is he d." By st at ut e,

W rit te n pr oo f of lo ss m

us t b e f u rn is he d to th e in su rer at it s sa id of fic e in cas e of cl ai m fo r lo ss fo r whi ch th is po li cy pr ov id es an y pe rio di c
pa y m en t c o n t i n g en t up on co nt in ui ng lo ss wit hi n 90 da y s aft er th e
te rm in at io n of th e pe rio d fo r whi ch th e in su rer is li ab le an d in cas e of
cl ai m for an y ot he r lo ss wit hi n 9 0 d ay s af te r th e d at e o f su ch lo ss

.

Mi nn . Sta t. § 62 A.04 , su bd iv . 2(7 ).

"Th us , un de r th e st at ut e, th e type of cl ai m de te rm in es th e da te pr oo f of lo ss is

du e." W ey rau ch v. Cig na Life In s. Co. of N.Y., 41 6 F.3d 71 7, 72 1 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ).

Fo r cl ai m s i nv ol vi ng "co nt in ui ng lo ss ," s uc h a s t he lo ng -te rm di sa bi li ty cl ai m he re,

pr oo f of lo ss is du e ni ne ty d ay s aft er th e t e r mi n at io n of th e pe rio d of di sa bi li ty; fo r
cl ai m s in vo lv in g "an y ot he r lo ss ," p ro of of lo ss is du e ni ne ty da y s from th e di sc ret e
lo ss da te

. Id

. The ne t effe ct of th is pr ov is io n an d th e Po li cy 's th ree- y ear li m it at io ns

pe rio d is th at an act io n m

us t be fil ed wit hi n th ree y ears an d ni ne ty da y s of th e da te th e

in su red ceas es to be di sa bl ed

. It fo ll ows , th eref or e, th at Mat th ew ha d th ree y ears an d

ni ne ty da y s fro m th e da te hi s di sa bi li ty en de d to fil e su it

. Bec au se Mat th ew ha s be en

co nt in uo us ly di sa bl ed since 1996

, th e th ree- y ear li m it at io n pe rio d ne ve r be ga n to ru n.
Thu s, h is su it was c le arl y ti m el y

.

Unu m arg ue s, ho wev er, th at th e "co nt in ui ng lo ss " pr ov is io n a p p li es on ly in

ci rc um stance s whe re th e in su red was co nt in uo us ly to ta ll y di sa bled dur ing the re le va nt

ti m e pe rio d. Unu m co nt en ds th at Ry an , Laid la w an d We yr a uc h are no t on ly

di st in gu is ha bl e on th ei r fa ct s, but ac tua lly na rr ow ed th e m ean in g of "co nt in ui ng lo ss ."

-1 4-Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we reject Unu m 's in te rp re t at io n, whi ch read s wor ds in to th e

st at ut e th at are no t th ere an d m is in te rp ret s th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi nn es ot a's ho ld in gs

in Ry an an d Laid la w as well as ou r own in te rp r e t a t i on of Mi nn es ot a la w in

W ey rau ch

.

In Laid la w, th e Mi n n e s o ta Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered th e cas e of a pl ai nt iff

who was cl ai m in g o n l y t o t a l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, an d de te rm in ed th at

, as us ed in

se ct io n 62 A.04

, su bd iv

. 2( 7)

, "t he te rm in at io n o f th e p eri od for whi ch th e in su rer is

li ab le " m ean s "t he to ta l co nt in uo us pe rio d of li ab il it y , be it sh or t or lo ng ."

25 5 N.W .2d at 81 1. In Ry an , th e in su ran ce po li cy at is su e co ve red th e pl ai nt iff on ly

if he was to ta ll y di sa bl ed

. 45 0 N.W .2d at 12 9. App lying Laid la w, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

of Mi nn es o t a h e ld th at "[w]hen an in su red cl ai m s to ta l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s

. . . , th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d wil l no t be gi n to ru n un t i l 90 da y s aft er te rm in at io n of th e

co nt in uo us pe rio d of di sa bi li ty. Thu s, [th e pl ai nt iff ] c a n n o t be ba rred by th e

th ree- y ear li m it at io ns st at ut e if he ha s be en co n t i n u o u s l y t ot al ly d is ab le d un de r th e

te rm s o f t h e Po li cy ." Id

. Bec au se th e pl ai nt iff was no t cl ai m in g res id ua l di sa bi li ty

be ne fit s, th e i s s u e o f co nt in uo us res id ua l di sa bi li ty was no t be fo re th e Co ur t, an d,

th eref or e, th e Co ur t d id no t di sc us s th e ap pl ic at io n o f se ct io n 6 2A.0 4, s ub di v. 2 (7 ),

un de r th os e ci rcu m st an ces . Sim il arl y , in W ey rau ch , th is Co ur t app li ed th e pr oo f of

lo ss pr ov is io n to a cl ai m fo r to ta l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, co nc lu di ng th at

, un de r th os e
ci rcu m st an ces , "an act io n m us t be fil ed wit hi n th ree y ears an d 90 da y s of th e da te th e

in su r e d c e a s e s t o be to ta ll y di sa bl ed ." 41 6 F.3 d at 72 1. As in Ry an , ho wev er, th e

W ey rau ch Co ur t ha d no oc cas io n to di sc us s th e st at ut e's ap pl ic at io n to a co nt in uo us ly

res id ua ll y di sa bl ed pl ai nt iff

.

Unu m su gg es ts po li cy reas on s fo r ap pl yi n g t he "co nt in ui ng lo ss " pr ov is io n

o n l y whe n th e in su red was co nt in uo us ly to ta ll y di sa bl ed du rin g th e rel ev an t t i me

pe rio d. Howev er, th es e arg um en ts fai l to reco gn iz e th e ro le of th e co ur ts

. "Ou r ro le

is to in te rp ret an d ap pl y st at ut es as writ te n, fo r th e po wer to red raft la ws to im pl em en t

po li cy ch an ge s is res erv ed to th e le gi sl at iv e br an ch ." Doe v. Dep 't of Vete ran s

-1 5-Affai rs , 51 9 F.3 d 45 6, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). "[W] he n st at ut es are st rai gh tfo rward an d

cl ear,

. . . po li cy arg um en ts are at be st in te res ti ng , at wor st di st ract in g an d m is le ad in g,

an d in ne it he r cas e au th or it at iv e." Pu ck et v. Hot Sp rin gs Sch

. Dis t. No. 2 3

- 2

, 52 6

F.3 d 11 51

, 11 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The st at ut e do es

no t d is ti ng ui sh be twee n to ta l and res id ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m s, and we de cl in e Unu m 's

in vi ta ti on to read th is di st in ct io n in to th e st at ut e. Bec au se M at th ew was 7

co nt in uo us ly di sa bl ed fro m 19 96 on ward s, his res id ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m was a cl ai m

fo r a "co nt in ui ng lo ss ." The refo re, th e te rm in at io n of th e pe rio d for whi ch Unu m is

li ab le ha s no t y et oc cu rred

, an d th e th ree- y ear li m it at io n pe rio d ne ve r be ga n to ru n.

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at Mat th ew's res id ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m was

no t b arre d b y

th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.

D. Oth er Iss ue s

Unu m al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g it s po st -tr ia l m ot io n

fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, or al te rn at iv el y a ne w t r i a l

, be cau se th e is su e of

res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s w a s i mp r o pe rly su bm it te d to th e jury an d th e award of

res id ua l di sa bi li ty be ne fit s was co nt rary to th e ev id en ce an d ex ces si ve

. "Th e de ni al

of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w is rev ie wed de no vo ." Fo st er v. Tim e

Unu m al so as se rts th at Ry an a n d Laid la w are di st in gu is ha bl e on th ei r fact s 7

be cau se in th os e cas es , th e in su red 's cl ai m fo r be ne fit s ha d ne ve r be en de ni ed by th e in su rer. Un um arg ue s t ha t i ts let te r of Sep te m be r 29 , 19 97 , in whi ch it in di cat ed to
Mat th ew th at it was un ab le to accu rat el y ad jud ic at e hi s cl ai m du e to in su ffi ci en t fin an ci al in fo rm at io n, co ns ti tu te d a de ni al of th e cl ai m

. A s U n u m 's co un se l

co nf ir m ed du rin g or al arg um en ts

, th is ob se rv at io n is pa rt of Unu m 's arg um en t th at Ry an , La id la w a nd W ey rau ch na rro wed th e m ean in g o f "co nt in ui ng lo ss " su ch th at th e "co nt in ui ng lo ss " pr ov is io n ap pl ie s on ly to to ta l di sa bi li ty cl ai m s. Bec au se Unu m i s no t m ak in g an al te rn at iv e arg um en t, an d be cau se Unu m 's ob se rv at io n do es n o t di st ur b ou r co nc lu si on th at th e "co nt in ui ng lo ss " pr ov is io n ap pl ie s to res id ua l
di sa bi li ty as wel l as to ta l d is ab il it y cla im s, we n eed no t d eci de whe th er the let te r of Sep te m be r 29 , 19 97 co ns ti tu te d a de ni al of M at th ew's cla im

.

-1 6-W arn er En tm 't Co ., 25 0 F .3d 11 89 , 11 94 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) . "Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of

la w is pr op er on ly whe n th ere is a co m pl et e ab se nc e of pr ob at iv e fact s to su pp or t th e

co nc lu si on reac he d so th at no reas on ab le juro r co ul d ha ve fo un d fo r [Ma tt he w] ." Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. "Th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l . . . wil l

on ly be rev ers ed up on a m an ife st ab us e of di sc ret i o n or be cau se th e ve rd ic t is so

gr os sl y ex ces si ve as to sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce." Id

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

.

W e ne ed no t de ci de whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in su bm it ti ng th e res id ua l

d i s ab il it y be ne fit s is su e to th e jury be cau se Unu m is es to pp ed fro m m ak i n g t h a t

arg um en t. Und er th e in vi te d erro r do ct rin e, "[a ]n erro ne ou s ru li ng ge ne ral ly do es no t

co ns ti tu te rev ers ib le erro r whe n i t i s i nv it ed by the same pa rty who se ek s on ap pe al

to ha ve th e ru li ng ov ert ur ne d." Ro th v. Hom es ta ke Mi ni ng Co

., 74 F.3 d 84 3, 84 5 (8 th

Ci r. 19 96 ). "'Th e do ct rin e of in vi te d erro r ap pl ie s whe n th e tri al co ur t an no un ces it s

in te nt io n to em

ba rk on a sp eci fic co ur se of act i o n a n d de fen se co un se l sp eci fic al ly

ap pr ov es of th at co ur se of act io n.'" Uni te d S ta te s v . Jewe ll , 61 4 F .3d 91 1, 92 0 (8t h

Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mah le r, 14 1 F.3 d 81 1, 81 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )).

Here, Unu m no t on ly ag reed wit h th e di st ric t co ur t's an no un ced in te nt io n of

su bm it ti ng th e is su e to th e jury, bu t in fact rep eat e d ly o pp os ed su gg es ti on s th at th e
is su e ou gh t to be de ci de d by th e co ur t. Unu m op po se d Mat th ew's m ot io n to bi fu rcat e

th e tri al an d su bm it th e res id ua l d i s ab il it y is su e to th e co ur t or , al te rn at iv el y , to a

sp eci al m as te r. Su bs eq ue n t ly, du rin g pr e-t ria l he ari ng s, Unu m reject ed th e di st ric t

co ur t's su gg es ti on th at th e pa rti es vo lu nt ari ly ag ree to bi fu rcat e th e cl ai m s and ha ve

th e co ur t de te rm in e Mat th ew's res id ua l di sa bi li ty cl ai m

. H a v i n g in si st ed on

su bm it ti ng th e is su e to th e jury, Unu m can no t no w co m pl ai n th at th e di st ric t c ou rt

erre d i n t ak in g t he act io n t ha t Un um it se lf r eq ue st ed

.

Unu m m ak es two arg um en ts to su pp or t it s co nt en ti on th at Mat th ew's ev id en ce

of "n et in co m e" was fla wed an d res ul te d in an ex ces si ve ve rd ic t. Fi rs t, Unu m as se rts

th at Mat th ew wa s e s t o p p e d fro m arg ui ng th at no t al l of hi s ta xa bl e in co m e was
de riv ed fro m "p ers on al se rv ic e s " w i t h in th e m ean in g of th e Po li cy be cau se th is

-1 7-rep res en ta ti on co nt ra dic te d Ma tth ew ' s re pr es en ta tio ns on ce rt ai n tax ret ur ns reg ard in g

in co m e fo r "p ers on al se rv ic es ." W e reject th is arg um en t fo r th e reas on s st at ed by th e
di st ric t co ur t. Unu m ha s fai le d to sh ow th at "p ers on al se rv ic es " ha s th e sa m e m ean in g

un de r th e Po li cy as it do es fo r pu rp os es o f Mat th ew's ta x ret ur ns

. Mo reo ve r, th e
rel ev an t ta x ret ur ns were fil ed by Mat th ew's pr of es si on al co rp or at io n, an d Unu m ha s

fai le d t o s ho w th at Mat th ew, as an in di vi du al

, ha s tak en in co ns is te nt po si ti on s with

res pe ct to "p ers on al se rv ic es " as de fin ed by th e Po li cy

. Seco nd

, Unu m co nt en ds th at

Mat th ew's e v i de nc e of "n et in co m e" was fla wed be cau se it ex cl ud ed in co m e ot he r

th an t h a t de riv ed fro m "p ers on al se rv ic es " pe rfo rm ed by h im y et in cl ud ed bu si ne ss

ex pe ns es rel at ed to ot he r so ur ces of i nc om e. Howev er, Un um pre se nt ed to th e jury

a l l o f th e ob

jecti on s to Mat th ew's cal cu la ti on of "n et in co m e" th at it no w of fer s o n

ap pe al

, an d th e jury reject ed th em . Bas ed on th e ev id en ce in th e reco rd

, th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng th at th e jury's ve rd ic t was su pp or te d
by a le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s an d di d no t st ro ng ly co nf li ct wit h th e gr eat er weig ht of th e ev id en ce so as to warra nt a ne w tri al

. See Ry an v. McDo no ug h Po wer Equ ip

., In c., 73 4 F.2 d 3 8 5

, 3 8 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 19 84 ) ("Th e co ur t sh ou ld reject a jury's

ve rd ic t on ly whe re, aft er a rev ie w of al l th e ev id en ce gi vi ng fu ll res pe ct to th e jury's

ve rd ic t, th e co ur t is le ft wit h a de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e jury ha s erre d." ).

Fi na ll y , Un um arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ou gh t to ha ve de cl ared a m is tri al

ba se d on a po st -tr ia l co m

m un ic at io n fro m a m em

be r of th e jury to th e co ur t in whi ch

th e juro r ex pr es se d d o u b t s ab ou t th e accu racy of Mat th ew's m et ho d of cal cu la ti ng
da m ag es an d rep or te d feel in g pr es su red b y ot he r juro rs to acce pt Mat th ew's

c a l c u l a t io ns

. "A de ci si on to gr an t or de ny a m ot io n fo r m is tri al is le ft to th e so u n d

di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t." St erk el v. Fru eh au f Co r p

. , 9 7 5 F

. 2 d 52 8, 53 2 (8 th

Ci r. 19 92 ). W e co nc lu de th at 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 nyin g

Unu m 's m ot io n fo r mi st ria l. Bec au se th e juro r's e-m ai l do es no t in di cat e th at an y

ex tra ne ou s in fo rm at io n was im pr op erl y br ou gh t to th e jury's at te nt io n, th at an y

ou ts id e in flu en ce was br ou gh t to be ar on an y juro r, or th at th ere was any m is ta ke in

en te rin g th e ve rd ic t on to th e ve rd ic t fo rm , t h e e -m ai l do es no t pr ov id e an ad eq ua te

-1 8-ba si s to al lo w an in qu iry in to th e va li di ty of th e ve rd ic t. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 60 6( b) ;

Sco gi n v. Cen tu ry Fi tn es s, In c., 78 0 F.2 d 1 3 1 6

, 1 31 9 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Eag le

, 53 9 F.2 d 11 66

, 11 70 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at up on an in qu iry

in to th e va li di ty of a ve rd ic t, a juro r m ay on ly te st ify reg ard in g "wh et he r ex tra ne ou s

pr ejud ic ia l in fo rm at io n was im pr op erl y br ou gh t to th e jury's at te nt io n or whe th er an y

ou ts id e in flu en ce was im pr op erl y bro ug ht to be ar u po n a ny j ur or ").

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e de ci si on s of th e di st ric t co ur t in al l res pe ct s, ex cep t

th at we rev ers e it s award of pr ejud gm en t in te res t un de r Mi nn es ot a co m m on la w an d

rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns to de te rm in e whe th er st at ut or y pr ejud gm en t in te res t is

av ai la bl e to Mat th ew un de r Mi nn . Sta t. § 54 9.0 9.

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

-1 9-