Opinion ID: 2617665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Special Interrogatory and Verdict Issues

Text: Eighth, the insurers claim that the trial court erred in refusing to submit special interrogatories to the jury and to direct it to return a special verdict. Special verdicts and interrogatories are both matters within a trial court's discretion. Cambelt Intern. Corp. v. Dalton, 745 P.2d 1239, 1241 (Utah 1987) (citations omitted). Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 49 states: (a) ... The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict ..., and (b) ... [t]he court may submit to the jury ... written interrogatories upon one or more issues... . (Emphasis added.) In the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, the trial court's actions will not be disturbed. E.A. Strout Western Realty v. W.C. Foy & Sons, 665 P.2d 1320, 1324 (Utah 1983) (citations omitted). Specifically, the insurers claim that the trial court abused its discretion because (1) numerous jury instructions were in part unclear, erroneous, incomplete, and prejudicial, and (2) the complexity of this case mandated the use of special interrogatories or verdicts in order to help the jury enter a rational verdict. A jury does not necessarily have to state directly how it resolved every important issue in a case to arrive at a rational and fair verdict. Miley v. Oppenheimer & Co., 637 F.2d 318, 334 (5th Cir.1981). No party is entitled to a special verdict on each of the multi-faceted, multitudinous issues essential to the resolution of a given case. Id. (citations omitted). While complex in some respects, the instant case primarily concerns an alleged breach of an insurance contract and damages. At trial, the jury did not appear to be overwhelmed by issues and evidence, as might have been the case in a convoluted antitrust or securities regulation matter. Further, contrary to the insurers' arguments, the jury instructions do not appear to have been prejudicial but, rather, helpful to the jury in sorting out issues. Finally, despite the insurers' objections, a violation of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing was adequately and correctly defined in the jury instructions. [5] Jury instructions defined bad faith in part as [a] refusal without proper cause to compensate the insured for a loss covered by the policy and stated, An insurer has the duty of acting expeditiously, in good faith and within a reasonable time after demand to pass on proofs of loss furnished by the insured. Bad faith could include refusal to pay. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion in the instructions and verdict forms submitted to the jury.