IN ORDER. 1. DO YOU FIND DEFENDANT PATEMAN LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF PUTNAM? YES / NO (IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "YES," PROCEED TO QUESTION 2.) (IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "NO," PROCEED TO QUESTION 4.) 2. WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT YOU FIND PATEMAN LIABLE TO PUTNAM, WITHOUT INCLUDING ANY AMOUNT ALREADY PAID TO PUTNAM? $_______________ 3. DO YOU FIND DEFENDANT PATEMAN LIABLE FOR SUE AND LABOR EXPENSES? _______________YES _______________NO IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF YOUR AWARD? $_______________ 4. IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT PATEMAN NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF PUTNAM, PLEASE STATE THE REASON OR REASONS: a. / PLAINTIFF PUTNAM HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF. b. / DEFENDANT PATEMAN HAS PROVEN ITS DEFENSE OF THE INFIDELITY EXCLUSION. c. / DEFENDANT PATEMAN HAS PROVEN ITS DEFENSE OF NON"DISCLOSURE OF A MATERIAL FACT. IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "NO" TO QUESTION 1, AND HAVE CHECKED "C" TO QUESTION 4, YOU SHOULD PROCEED TO QUESTIONS 5 AND 6. 5. WE THE JURY, AS TO THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF PATEMAN'S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FRENKEL, FIND / LIABILITY NO LIABILITY (IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "NO LIABILITY," GO NO FURTHER.) (IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "LIABILITY," PROCEED TO QUESTION 6.) 6. WE THE JURY FIND DEFENDANT FRENKEL LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF PATEMAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $two million dollars. s/Frederick M. Kowal ------------------------- FOREPERSON SIGNATURE March 3, 1990 ------------------------- DATE
Lloyd's marine policy no. 243440200 was syndicated and, accordingly, issued by a coterie of subscribing underwriters. Each subscriber had a defined interest in the policy (the total of all subscribing interests being 100%). Though naming all the subscribers, the plaintiff sued Pateman "individually and in his capacity as representative underwriter," alleging, inter alia, that Pateman was "the general manager of [the subject] policy." For ease in reference, we emulate the parties and the district court, treating Pateman as if he were the sole underwriter in interest
The agent infidelity exclusion eliminated coverage for any loss resulting from "infidelity, conversion and/or misappropriation" perpetrated by an agent of the insured. The insurer's claim in this respect rested on its contention that the SLT field warehouseman, Harrison, was Putnam's agent within the contemplation of the policy
The following exchange is representative of the dialogue:
THE COURT: If you come up with something, two million dollars or less, then it seems to me that it's almost automatic that you owe, you have to return to the Defendant any difference between what you come up with and two million dollars, isn't that the case?
MR. GRUTMAN [Putnam's trial attorney]: I understand that....
The rule provides:
(a) Special Verdicts. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other