Opinion ID: 1472722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Glasses' Cross-Appeal

Text: We now address those issues raised in the Glasses' cross-appeal. Jeffrey contends that the jury should have been given an instruction on punitive damages against Farm Bureau. In Wittmer, supra, at 890, the Supreme Court set forth the following precept: Before [a bad faith violation of the UCSPA] cause of action exists in the first place, there must be evidence sufficient to warrant punitive damages. The circuit court, in the case at hand, correctly concluded that sufficient evidence of bad faith was presented for the issue to be submissible, but failed to submit on punitive damages. Interpreting the standard for punitive damages, the Wittmer Court states: This means there must be sufficient evidence of intentional misconduct or reckless disregard of the rights of an insured or a claimant to warrant submitting the right to award punitive damages to the jury. If there is such evidence, the jury should award consequential damages and may award punitive damages. Id. at 890. In light of Wittmer it may seem contrary for the circuit court to give an instruction on compensatory damages, yet preclude the jury from considering punitive damages. Nevertheless, we do not interpret Wittmer as mandating that a punitive damage instruction be given in all cases. Because Farm Bureau was an excess carrier and in view of the compensatory award against it, as well as the punitive damage award against Motorists, we are disinclined to reverse on this issue. We are of the opinion that the instructions rendered were sufficient to permit the jury to properly characterize the conduct of the respective carriers. Upon this line of reasoning, we also reject the Glasses' argument that an award of attorney fees should have been placed against Farm Bureau. Finally, we reject the contention of Garnett Doyle and Brenda Glass as to their claim for a damage award. CR 8.01.