Opinion ID: 6357449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of the Insurer's Conduct

Text: [¶ 17] Jewett also argues that the court erred or abused its discretion when it allowed the Wests to introduce evidence of the conduct of Jewett's insurer at trial. In particular, Jewett contends that, by denying (1) Jewett's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the insurer's conduct and (2) Jewett's motions for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages issue, the court improperly allowed the insurer's conduct to form the basis for the Wests' punitive damages claim. Jewett asserts that even though the jury did not award punitive damages, the evidence was prejudicial and influenced the jury's award of compensatory damages on the nuisance claim. [¶ 18] We afford trial courts 'wide discretion' in making evidentiary rulings, and review for abuse of discretion their rulings on the admissibility of evidence with respect to its prejudicial effect. Estate of Nickerson v. Carter , 2014 ME 19 , ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 658 . [¶ 19] The court did not err or abuse its discretion when it denied Jewett's motion in limine, which sought to exclude evidence of Jewett's insurer's conduct  in support of the Wests' claim for punitive damages. Jewett argued that the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to M.R. Evid. 411, which provides that [e]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. The court correctly determined, however, that the Wests were not offering the evidence as proof that Jewett was insured against liability. The evidence presented by the Wests that referenced the conduct of the insurer related to their punitive damages claim, and was intended to convince the jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the remediation team assembled by Jewett, which included the insurer, acted with malice when it sought to deceive the Wests during the clean-up process. [¶ 20] Jewett also seems to challenge the notion that the conduct of its insurer could form the basis of Jewett's liability. The court instructed the jury, without objection, that [a] corporation may be ... responsible for the acts of people who are not its employees if the evidence shows that it's more likely than not that the defendant has ratified those actions by approving the actions or accepting the benefit of those actions, or if the evidence shows that the defendant led the plaintiffs to believe that those other people had the authority to act on behalf of the defendant. Because the Wests presented evidence that Jewett led [them] to believe that the insurer had the authority to act on behalf of Jewett 3 by placing the insurer on its remediation team, the jury could have reasonably found that Jewett was responsible for the acts of the insurer. [¶ 21] Finally, Jewett has failed to show how it was prejudiced by the evidence relating to its insurer. See Estate of Nickerson , 2014 ME 19 , ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 658 . Jewett's motions made prior to, during, and after trial relating to this issue concerned the Wests' claim for punitive damages and the jury did not award punitive damages in this case. 4 The entry is: Judgment affirmed.