Opinion ID: 4564893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency-of-the-Evidence Challenge

Text: Hanover makes a last-ditch argument that we should affirm the entry of judgment against Falls on the alternative grounds that “there is absolutely no evidence” to support the jury verdict in his favor. But this is nothing more than a factual argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence—the one thing that even Hanover concedes requires a Rule 50(a) motion to be made at trial, followed by a Rule 50(b) motion afterward, in order to be preserved for appeal. 13 We note, however, that we have serious doubts about the district court’s conclusion that Brown’s fraud unambiguously voided Falls’s BPP coverage based on TME’s status as an additional insured under an endorsement in a separate part of the policy given (1) the structure of the policy and language of the relevant provisions, and (2) Hanover adjuster Gary Barkman’s testimony specifically contradicting the district court’s interpretation of the policy. Nos. 19-5483/5550/5551/5562 Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Page 30 Millionaire Ent’mt, et al. See Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 400–01; Doherty, 431 F. App’x at 384–86.14 This argument is therefore also forfeited.