Opinion ID: 1159934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in denying aic's motion for a directed verdict?

Text: At the close of all the evidence, AIC moved for a directed verdict, seeking a ruling by the trial court that coverage was excluded by the terms of the policy as a matter of law. On appeal, AIC challenges denial of that motion. AIC moved for a directed verdict only on the coverage question. Although Judge Shortell agreed with AIC's interpretation of the policy language, he denied AIC's motion for directed verdict. He instead asked counsel for AIC to submit jury instructions directing the jury to interpret the language of the exclusion according to AIC's position. Counsel for AIC agreed to this resolution without objection. The judge ultimately gave instructions parallel to the language in the exclusionary provision which was the focal point of the coverage issue. Movin' On had raised several other issues at trial, including allegations of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The jury found that the actions of AIC constituted fraud, and awarded Movin' On $329,558.17 in compensatory damages and $988,674.51 in punitive damages. In making its finding of fraud, the jury never reached the coverage issue. [1] We need not decide whether Judge Shortell correctly denied AIC's motion for directed verdict. The jury found AIC liable under the theory of fraud, which would have been presented to them regardless of whether the trial court granted a directed verdict on the coverage issue or not. Since the jury did not reach the coverage issue, any error in denying AIC's motion for directed verdict was harmless.