Opinion ID: 1769612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The propriety of the general verdict.

Text: Allstate claims that the jury's general verdict was improper because, it argues, one of the Hilleys' fraud claims was submitted to the jury without any supporting evidence. Specifically, Allstate focuses on the Hilleys' allegation that Allstate represented that it would fully cooperate with the Hilleys in repairing the house and that the Hilleys would be kept comfortable. Allstate argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict on this claim because, Allstate says, it was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, Allstate asserts that the general verdict may not stand because an unsupported fraud claim was presented to the jury. The only theory submitted to the jury was fraudulent misrepresentation. This was not a multiple-theory case. See King Mines Resort, Inc. v. Malachi Mining & Minerals, Inc., 518 So.2d 714, 716 (Ala.1987). In the present case, we cannot say that it is impossible to know on which of the multiple theories the jury based its verdict. Id. at 716. Therefore, we agree with the Hilleys that because there was only one theory submitted to the jury, the jury properly returned a general verdict.