Case Name: Dewayne HENSON and AXA Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants v. William L. RIGGENBACH and Teresa K. Riggenbach, Appellees
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2007-10-23
Citations: 982 So. 2d 432
Docket Number: No. 2006-CA-00997-COA
Parties: Dewayne HENSON and AXA Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants v. William L. RIGGENBACH and Teresa K. Riggenbach, Appellees.
Judges: ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. CHANDLER, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. MYERS, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE OPINION. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LEE, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ. KING, C.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 982
Pages: 432–443

Head Matter:
Dewayne HENSON and AXA Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants v. William L. RIGGENBACH and Teresa K. Riggenbach, Appellees.
No. 2006-CA-00997-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Oct. 23, 2007.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 2008.
Robert L. Moore, Dawn D. Carson, Clyde X. Copeland, III, Jan F. Gadow, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
W. Stephens Cox, Clarksdale, attorney for appellees.

Opinion:
GRIFFIS, J.,
for the Court.
¶ 1. Dewayne Henson and Corey Campbell, each in separate vehicles, collided with James Paris's vehicle. William Rig-genbach was a passenger in Paris's vehicle. William and his wife, Teresa, sued Henson, Campbell, and Paris. In a separate suit, William sued his insurance carrier, AXA Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company (AXA), on an underinsured motorist claim. The two suits were later consolidated.
¶2. The jury returned a verdict of $10,000 in compensatory damages for William and nothing for Teresa. Additionally, the jury declined to award punitive damages to the Riggenbachs. Post-trial, the Riggenbachs filed a motion for additur or, alternatively, for a new trial. The Yalobu-sha County Circuit Court granted the Rig-genbachs' motion for additur and suggested an award of (1) $30,000 in compensatory damages for William, (2) $5,000 for Teresa's loss of consortium claim, and (3) $10,000 in punitive damages. Henson and AXA declined to accept the circuit court's suggestion of additur. Henson and AXA appeal and argue that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the Riggenbachs' motion for additur.
¶ 3. After careful consideration, we interpret the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc. 947 So.2d 900 (Miss.2007) to require a new trial on damages before this matter is ripe for appellate review. Because the circuit court has yet to conduct a new trial on damages, we must dismiss Henson and AXA's appeal and remand this matter for a new trial on damages.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶4. The issues in this appeal emanate from a multi-car accident that occurred on August 17, 2001, near Grenada, Mississippi, among Paris, Campbell, and Henson. Riggenbach was riding as a passenger with Paris when Paris's vehicle collided with an automobile driven by Campbell. After Paris and Campbell impacted, Henson collided with both Paris's and Campbell's vehicles. During the investigation of the accident, allegations arose that Henson and Campbell were racing just before the collision; however, both Henson and Campbell denied any such allegations.
¶ 5. As stated, the Riggenbachs sued Paris, Campbell, and Henson. William also sued his automobile insurer, AXA, for underinsured motorist proceeds. The Ya-lobusha County Circuit Court consolidated the two suits and proceeded to trial.
¶ 6. The circuit court bifurcated the trial. The jury first considered liability and compensatory damages. Incident to the liability and compensatory damages portion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the Riggenbachs and awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages to William and nothing to Teresa. The jury assessed fifty percent of the liability to Campbell and fifty percent to Henson. The jury attributed no liability to Paris.
¶ 7. Incident to the punitive damages portion of the trial, the jury was to return a verdict in one of the following forms:
"We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, William Riggenbach, in the amount of_ punitive damages."
"We, the jury, find for the defendant, Dewayne Henson, on the issue of punitive damages."
The jury entered a figure of zero on the line for computation of punitive damages, and circled that portion of the form of the verdict indicative of a finding in favor of Henson. The circuit court considered the jury's verdict to be a finding for Henson. Consistent with the jury's verdict, the circuit trial court entered judgment for William in the amount of $5,000.
¶ 8. Post-trial, the Riggenbachs filed a motion for additur or, alternatively, a new trial. The circuit court found that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and reflected bias or prejudice. Consequently, the circuit court suggested an additur of (1) $30,000 in compensatory damages for William's neck injuries, (2) $5,000 for Teresa's loss of consortium claim, and (3) $10,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court also granted the Riggenbachs' motion for a new trial in the event that all the parties declined to accept the additur. The Riggen-bachs accepted the suggestion of additur, but Henson and AXA did not. Henson and AXA appeal. They claim the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the Riggenbachs' motion for additur.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 9. An additur is only appropriate when the trial judge makes a finding that the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate because the jury was "influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion" or the award was "contrary to the overwhelming weight of [the] credible evidence." Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002). The trial court has no fixed standards to proceed under when determining whether an addi-tur is warranted, but rather must make the decision on a case-by-case basis. Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Bolden, 854 So.2d 1051, 1058(¶ 20) (Miss.2003). "The party seeking the additur bears the burden of proving his injuries, loss of income, and other damages." Patterson v. Liberty Assocs., L.P., 910 So.2d 1014, 1020(¶19) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So.2d 742, 743(¶ 5) (Miss.1999)). When reviewing the trial court's decision regarding a motion for an additur, we are limited to an abuse of discretion standard. Id. "In deciding if the burden has been met, we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the jury decided, granting that party any favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom." Upchurch v. Rotenberry, 761 So.2d 199, 206(¶26) (Miss.2000). We are mindful that "[a]wards set by jury are hot merely advisory and generally will not be 'set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous.' " Patterson, 910 So.2d at 1020-21(¶ 19) (quoting Maddox, 738 So.2d at 743(¶ 5)).
ANALYSIS
¶ 10. While this appeal was pending, the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc., 947 So.2d 900 (Miss.2007). Dedeaux changed existing law regarding the right of appeal when a trial court grants an additur or remittitur. In Dedeaux, a married couple sued a laundry company after an automobile collision. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the husband and the wife and found that the wife was entitled to damages. However, the jury awarded zero damages to the husband. The couple moved for a new trial or, alternatively, for an additur. The circuit court granted the motion for additur and awarded additional damages to both the husband and the wife. The couple appealed to this Court and argued, among other things, that the circuit court erred when it did not award a larger additur. The laundry company claimed that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the additur. This Court held that, because the laundry company did not timely accept the additur, a new trial was necessary as to damages.
¶ 11. Afterwards, the supreme court granted certiorari to clarify the proper procedure involved in a circuit court's decision to grant a motion for an additur. The supreme court stated:
If the trial judge grants a motion for an additur ., such grant of an additur . shall take effect only if accepted by all the parties. If all the parties do not agree to the additur . then each party shall have the right to either demand a new trial on damages, or appeal the order asserting an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.
Id. at 908(¶ 16) (emphasis added). The supreme court further instructed:
[w]e find that [the plaintiffs] likewise were entitled to have the same option of either accepting the additur or demanding a new trial as to damages. Had this option been offered to all the parties and all parties agreed to the additur, the case would have ended. On the other hand, if any of the parties opted for a new trial on damages, then such a trial as a matter of right should have been available to any party so requesting the new trial.
Id. at 908(¶ 18).
¶ 12. According to Dedeaux, when a circuit court awards an additur or remit-titur, that additur or remittitur only takes effect if all parties accept it. If a party does not accept the additur or remittitur, then each party has the right to either (1) demand a new trial on damages, or (2) appeal the circuit court's decision to grant the motion for additur or remittitur.
¶ 13. Dedeaux further sets forth that, if any of the parties opts for or requests a new trial on damages, then that party will have a new trial "as a matter of right." Id. When a party files a motion for additur or remittitur or, alternatively, for a new trial on damages, that qualifies as a sufficient request for a new trial on damages.
¶ 14. The plaintiffs in Dedeaux rejected the additur, albeit implicitly. Here, the defendants rejected the circuit court's ad-ditur. Nevertheless, by refusing to accept the circuit court's additur, Henson and AXA did not eradicate the circuit court's decision that the jury's award was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Instead, when Henson and AXA rejected the circuit court's additur, it was no longer possible that all parties would agree to the additur. Per Dedeaux, if all parties did not agree to the additur, then each party had the right to demand a new trial on damages. Id. at 908(¶ 16). The Riggen-bachs demanded a new trial on damages when they filed their posttrial motion for an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial. Id. at 909(¶ 18). In a sense, after the circuit court found the jury's award against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, by rejecting the circuit court's additur, Henson and AXA effectively opted for a new trial on damages.
¶ 15. A circuit court's decision to grant a new trial is not a final judgment and, as such, "is ordinarily not appealable." Maxwell v. Illinois C.G. Railroad, 513 So.2d 901, 908 (Miss.1987). Because that new trial on damages has yet to occur, there has been no final judgment. As such, this matter is not ripe for appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss Henson and AXA's appeal and remand this matter to the circuit court for a new trial on damages.
¶ 16. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND REMANDED TO THE YALOBU-SHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE AP-PELLEES.
ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. CHANDLER, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. MYERS, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE OPINION. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LEE, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ. KING, C.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
. Teresa's claim was for loss of consortium.
. Before trial, Campbell settled and was dismissed from the suit, leaving the controversy regarding the cause of the accident to remain between Henson and Paris.
. Henson and AXA have not waived their right to appeal the circuit court's decision to grant the Riggeribach's motion for additur or, alternatively, for a new trial. If unsatisfied with the results of the new trial on damages, Henson and AXA would still have the right to appeal the circuit court's initial decision.