Opinion ID: 2218734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Award of Actual Damages.

Text: National States does not challenge the $43,800 actual damage award on the breach-of-contract claim. It does urge that the evidence is insufficient to support the additional damages awarded for bad faith and for fraud. Because we have confirmed the trial court actions in setting aside the fraud damages, we consider only the bad-faith claim. On the bad-faith claim, the trial court's instructions allowed the jury to award damages for emotional distress and for economic loss resulting from premature dissipation of plaintiff's assets. National States concedes that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to establish some economic loss for premature asset dissipation. It urges, however, that the amount of that economic loss was sufficiently small that a reasonable award for emotional damages could not have raised the total damage award to $40,000. Although the verdict is high, we conclude that it is not without evidentiary support nor is it a product of passion or prejudice. Even if we assume, as National States suggests, that the maximum award for the economic losses permitted under court's instructions was less than $10,000, the jury could have reasonably based the balance of the award on emotional distress. Plaintiff's closest friend who shepherded her claim through the insurance company and assisted her in obtaining an attorney testified as follows: Q. When Ida first went in, did you discuss with her the facts that her money was being used, you had to use up her money to pay for the nursing home? A. She understood that when she went in there, yes. Q. Did you talk aboutDid she mention to you that she had this nursing home policy? Did she understand that? A. Oh, yes, she did understand that. Q. Did you tell her that the insurance company wasn't providing funds to pay for the nursing home care? A. Not when she first went in because I didn't know that. Q. Okay. Subsequently to that time, did you tell her that? A. Once in a while she would ask measked me about her bank account, and how much money she had, and she said, well, we don't have to pay it, the insurance is paying it, so. Q. And when you discuss the fact that the insurance company wasn't paying it, was she upset about that? A. Yes, she really was. Q. Would you just describe that to the jury, please. A. Well, she was concerned because she was spending her own money. Q. Did she realize she didn't have a lot of money to. A. Yes she did. Q. to pay for the nursing home care? So she knew she wasn't getting the benefits? A. Yes, she knew that. .... Q. And one of the issues that the jury may be confronted with is what type of understanding she had of this and what I want to know is, how long would she have been upset or recognize the fact that she wasn't receiving the funds from the insurance company? A. Well, at times, even now, she will say when I have to, you know, take her to see the doctor, take her some place for her eyes, she will say, well, who's paying for this? Do I have to pay for this? How much money do we have? Is the insurance paying it? She will ask me these things just for a period of time. Q. And can you tell us how long she would have comprehended the fact that the company was not paying the premiumof not paying the $60.00 per day on the nursing home insurance? A. I think she understood that pretty much up to the time [in November 1988] when she was ill with the cancer. It is, of course, difficult to arrive at a sum of money that fairly compensates for the trauma visited upon elderly persons by having their worldly possessions dissipated by extended care costs that they believe should be covered by insurance. We are convinced, however, that this is a situation capable of producing severe mental suffering. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the damages awarded.