Case Name: Jaroslaw WASKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-26
Citations: 570 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 13-1706
Parties: Jaroslaw WASKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: NORRIS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 485–485

Head Matter:
Jaroslaw WASKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-1706.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 26, 2014.
Before: NORRIS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Jaroslaw Waskowski was involved in a car accident, and sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in Michigan state court after State Farm terminated his benefits. State Farm removed the action to federal court where, after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict that Waskowski was in fact injured in the car accident, but that State Farm owed no additional benefits beyond the amount it had already paid. Waskowski appeals the district court's denial of his motion to amend the judgment to add damages or, in the alternative, his motion for a new trial on damages.
The panel has had the opportunity to consider the arguments advanced by the parties and to conduct our own independent review of the record on appeal. In this case, the district court issued an Opinion and Order which explains in detail the analysis behind the court's denial of plaintiffs motions. Waskowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-13036, 2013 WL 1774696 (E.D.Mich. Apr.25, 2013) (Page ID 1636). We agree with the reasoning of the district court and affirm on that basis.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.