Opinion ID: 1997565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Timing of Nationwide's Payment

Text: Nationwide refused to pay any of Devaney's PIP claims for a period of almost two years. In March 1995, right before Devaney's trial was scheduled to begin, Nationwide offered to pay Devaney the full amount of his PIP claims with interest. Devaney accepted the offer on the condition that he would be allowed to tell the jury that Nationwide's offer of payment came only a few days before trial. This condition of acceptance was documented in correspondence between the parties' counsel. Nonetheless, at trial Nationwide objected to the introduction of evidence as to the timing of its PIP payment. Devaney advised the court that the parties had stipulated to the admissibility of the evidence, and counsel for Nationwide acknowledged the prior agreement, but said that it was a mistake on his part. The trial court excluded the evidence pursuant to D.R.E. 403, based on its finding that the jury might be confused or misled. The trial court made no finding that the parties' agreement was void or unenforceable, yet its ruling abrogated a material provision of their contract. [2] We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give effect to the parties' stipulation. This error, combined with the erroneous admission of evidence relating to the § 2118 arbitration, had a significant prejudicial effect on Devaney's claim. The thrust of his bad faith claim was that Nationwide had no interest in resolving the PIP claims until the trial was a few days away and its feet were held to the fire. The timing of Nationwide's offer of payment strongly supports Devaney's theory and casts serious doubt on Nationwide's claimed justification for withholding PIP benefits. This evidence would have been an important piece of information for the jury to evaluate and its erroneous exclusion mandates a new trial.