Opinion ID: 1039856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Verdict Form and Waiver Defense

Text: iFreedom contends that the district court used a flawed special verdict form because it “was not adjusted to the claims in the case, and did not even permit the jury to award amounts that [First Tennessee] admitted it owed but had failed to pay. Instead, the verdict form erroneously asked only if [First Tennessee] had breached the non-assignment provision in the Freedom APA.” Aplt. Br. at 48. We disagree. The only claims that remained after the district court’s oral ruling on directed verdict were the alleged breaches of §§ 2.5(b) and 10.5, and iFreedom admitted it was only seeking damages for breach of § 10.5, see Aplee. Supp. App. at SA231.2 The district court specifically asked if iFreedom had a breach of contract claim for failure to pay “the earnouts,” and iFreedom’s counsel responded, “No.” Id. at SA233-34. We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s use of the special verdict form. iFreedom also asserts that the district court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor on First Tennessee’s affirmative defense of waiver and including the waiver defense on the special verdict form. We need not resolve these issues because any 2 In its written order, the district court also granted the motion for directed verdict on § 2.5(b). See Aplt. App., Vol. II at A374. -9- alleged error is harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 (“At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights.”). The jury did not reach the question of waiver on the special verdict form because it found that First Tennessee had not breached the contract. See Aplt. App., Vol. I at A350. Although iFreedom argues that the failure to grant the directed verdict on the waiver defense “negatively influenced the jury in its deliberations on Freedom’s claims,” Aplt. Br. at 49, it has pointed to no authority to support its position. In a similar situation where a party argued that an erroneously submitted claim “tainted” the jury even though the jury did not find against the party on that claim, we held that any alleged error in submitting to a jury a claim that resulted in no damages should be disregarded. See Strickland Tower Maint., Inc., v. AT&T Commc’ns, 128 F.3d 1422, 1430 (10th Cir. 1997). We see no reversible error in the district court’s denial of the directed verdict on the waiver defense and its decision to include it on the special verdict form.