Opinion ID: 764059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The $10,000 Setoff

Text: 11 Allstate also contends that the court should have reduced the $130,000 jury award for past and future pain and suffering by $10,000 in order to account for the amount Schwimmer received in settlement from the van owner. Schwimmer in turn argues that the jury understood that its award would be in addition to the $10,000 because her attorney explained in his summation, with the approval of the court and without objection from Allstate, that [t]he verdict sheet will ask you, if you reach that point ... to find money for Frances Schwimmer in addition to the $10,000 that she received from the van. However, the verdict sheet made no mention of the $10,000 settlement or its relation to the verdict to be rendered by the jury. Nor did the court's instructions. In Allstate's view, the verdict sheet and instructions, to which plaintiff did not object, indicated to the jury that it should make an award of full damages (from which $10,000 would be deducted in fashioning the judgment) and are controlling. 12 Allstate's argument is not without force. However, the record is more complicated than Allstate suggests. In preparing the charge, the court told counsel: it is important for the lawyers to know what the charge is going to be in advance of summations, the reason being, of course, the lawyers should never be put in a position where he says something inconsistent with the charge. Counsel for Schwimmer subsequently stated that he was concerned that when the jury--if the jury--awards money, that it not speculate in any fashion on what the underinsurance was or was not. In this case, it just happens to have been $10,000, the minimum, and it is in your joint pretrial order, but who knows what they would speculate what Ms. Schwimmer already received, and they may want to deduct something for it. Counsel for Allstate stated that it makes it a lot simpler if they just deal with what they see here, and the math comes out later. Counsel for Schwimmer responded that we have this undisputed fact she received it. It is just a matter of how the court wants to tell the jury, don't regard it and do this in addition or how do you handle it, how did they handle it. After hearing both parties' arguments, Judge Leisure decided that he would not include the settlement amount in his charge but stated that counsel for Schwimmer could in his summation note the fact it is in evidence as an undisputed fact, [and] explain inferences that can be drawn. Schwimmer's attorney did not take exception to the charge but in summation made the remarks regarding the verdict sheet quoted above. Neither the judge nor counsel for Allstate made any note or objection to Schwimmer's summation. 13 Before dismissing the jury, Judge Leisure asked counsel if they wished to make any motions to the jury. Schwimmer's attorney responded in the negative, thereby failing to clarify whether the amount awarded was in addition to the $10,000 settlement. Allstate's attorney also failed to seek to clarify the issue of the prior settlement, instead moving to set aside the entire $130,000 award as excessive. The judge responded: I'll talk to you about that [later]. Is there any motion with respect to the jury still being here? Both parties answered in the negative. 14 Moreover, after the jury had been dismissed and after the court had concluded that the award was not excessive, counsel for Schwimmer stated: Plaintiff will be entering judgment in this matter in the sum of $130,000, and since it is a contract action, with interest from April 27th, 1994. Upon hearing this, Allstate's attorney objected only to the award of prejudgment interest. At no point did he ask that $10,000 be set-off from the full $130,000 award. Allstate thus failed to correct what Schwimmer and the court obviously thought the verdict called for. While Schwimmer might have had the burden of objecting to the charge or asking for clarification given the ambiguities surrounding this issue, it was certainly Allstate's obligation to correct any perceived error when the amount of the judgment was discussed, an omission that deprived the district court of an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding or erroneous conclusion. 15 Under these circumstances, we affirm the district court's judgment of $130,000, while vacating the award of prejudgment interest. We remand to the district court to calculate and award only post-verdict interest.